Hustler woo

[~enigma~]

Why are these idiots proud of being in Hustler?

[Bell]

Why are these idiots proud of being in Hustler?

Whaaa? Larry Flint's Hustler? I hope their not shown naked :covereyes

[~enigma~]

Whaaa? Larry Flint's Hustler? I hope their not shown naked :covereyes
Yes it is Larry Flint's rag. Steven Jones is the centerfold :)

What are they supposed to do. Show Hustler to peo[ple on the street?

[jhunter1163]

Now Twoofers can say "I just read Hustler for the articles", the way people used to do with Playboy.

[TjW]

Playboy had articles? I thought it was thick to keep from damaging the centerfold.

[Pardalis]

Now I definately want to see a link to that.

[ConspiRaider]

Now I definately want to see a link to that.
Yes. And I absolutely swear to skip past the pages of oiled bodies and go right to the probing article on woo...

[Pardalis]

Yes. And I absolutely swear to skip past the pages of oiled bodies and go right to the probing article on woo...

Skip the whoa and go straight to the woo?

[ConspiRaider]

Skip the whoa and go straight to the woo?
Yes. The whoa, the wow, the wee, the who and the how. When I got woo on my mind, my eyes just go blind.

What if the woo article is written by a wooman? And she's oiled?

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes. And I absolutely swear to skip past the pages of oiled bodies and go right to the probing article on woo...
im not so sure i want to read it now

[Pardalis]

:newlol

Maybe the LTW boys finally got a clue?

[jhunter1163]

It's hard to read the articles when you're holding the magazine sideways, which is usually how people hold Hustler.

[ConspiRaider]

It's hard to read the articles when you're holding the magazine sideways, which is usually how people hold Hustler.
I know what you mean. I actually learned to read upside down by practicing on a Hustler, since it was already in that position most of the time. But, anything to advance the reading habits of Americans, God knows we need all the help we can get. Thanks Larry!

[PerryLogan]

I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

[ConspiRaider]

I have no idea what you guys are talking about.
Well Perry it's like this. There's this magazine with um like well...

(wait a minute - that's right the NWO is monitoring this forum)

So anyway I was reading the condensed book in this month's Readers Digest, called Loyalty To Your Kind And Wonderful Government and taking notes on it in case I have kids one day and can pass this helpful information to the next generation and...

[Pardalis]

Perry, have you ever tried "I'm feeling lucky" on Google, while typing "Hustler"?

;) ;)

[MikeW]

Why are these idiots proud of being in Hustler?
They're proud of any media coverage at all... Though it seems they've forgotten that Hustler already did a piece with David Ray Griffin back in 2005 (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050604140153943). When probably they were also saying that the story was "going to blow" any minute, "just one last push" etc.

[PerryLogan]

Perry, have you ever tried "I'm feeling lucky" on Google, while typing "Hustler"?No, but I once Googled Halle Berry in her Catwoman suit. I'm only human.

As to Hustler, the conspiracy guys are obviously starved for attention. They will ride on anyone's coattails--Charlie Sheen, Larry Flynt, and other classy types.

[ConspiRaider]

They're proud of any media coverage at all... Though it seems they've forgotten that Hustler already did a piece with David Ray Griffin back in 2005...
On Griffin, was that media coverage, or UN-coverage in Hustler? See what I'm saying? (Oh god I actually do see what I'm saying oh no now I can't get the image of oiled twoofers out of my mind and I must now get thee (me) to a nunnery)

[Pardalis]

Maybe they think they'll gain more followers by having an article on Hustler, knowing full well that men's critical thinking skills drop to - 100 when reading that magazine.

[T.A.M.]

No, but I once Googled Halle Berry in her Catwoman suit. I'm only human.

As to Hustler, the conspiracy guys are obviously starved for attention. They will ride on anyone's coattails--Charlie Sheen, Larry Flynt, and other classy types.

I agree. While they and their Ilk will try to pass this off as "Exposure for the Truth" it is clearly ATTENTIONWHORING/ATTENTIONSLUTTING.

just my opinion.

TAM:)

[WildCat]

I bet many people have "pulled it" while looking at Hustler.

[HeyLeroy]

It's hard to read the articles when you're holding the magazine sideways, which is usually how people hold Hustler.

...With one hand, no less.

(ETA) This comment fits with WildCat's observation, too!:D

[ConspiRaider]

Maybe they think they'll gain more followers by having an article on Hustler, knowing full well that men's critical thinking skills drop to - 100 when reading that magazine.
I dunno, I'm pretty critical when I'm reading Hustler. For example, I apply Euclidian Geometry concepts when evaluating various shapes such as curves, arcs, spheroids and the like (I DO like). Basically I'm trying to determine whether the shapes in the magazine are theoretically possible.

Some months, I have determined they are not. Figments, air brushings, visions (VISIONS) that defy the laws of Euclidian Geometrical Dynamicism.

[defaultdotxbe]

I bet many people have "pulled it" while looking at Hustler.
id like to give her an "inside job"

[chacal]

It could be that the twooffers like Hustler because it sharpens their image analyzing skills of holes and plane shaped objects.


I'm just asking questions.

[ConspiRaider]

I wonder if a man's - er - tower has ever collapsed in 6.6 seconds soon after "reading" Hustler?

[Pardalis]

Maybe Hustler "readers" can't see the difference between fake and reality, or maybe they just don't care?

[Pardalis]

I wonder if a man's - er - tower has ever collapsed in 6.6 seconds soon after "reading" Hustler?

Don't even try to make a joke about pyroclastic flow, let's not even go there...

[ConspiRaider]

Maybe Hustler "readers" can't see the difference between fake and reality, or maybe they just don't care?
For example, as I'd indicated in my Euclidian Geometric approach - the determination between fake and reality in the area of Spheroids?

[jhunter1163]

Maybe Hustler "readers" can't see the difference between fake and reality, or maybe they just don't care?

The difference between fake and real is obvious, even to Twoofers. Fake is overly perky and looks stretched tight, while real is... oh, sorry, wrong kind of real and fake...

[Pardalis]

Maybe Hustler is a good venue for CTists after all... I mean, they don't know a thing about structural engeneering or science, or math, or even criminal investigation. Where else can they go? They are experts at JAQing off.

[Architect]

Maybe Hustler "readers" can't see the difference between fake and reality, or maybe they just don't care?


I would imagine that eyesight problems are an issue.....

[jhunter1163]

Maybe Hustler is a good venue for CTists after all... I mean, they don't know a thing about structural engeneering or science, or math, or even criminal investigation. Where else can they go? They are experts at JAQing off.


Like the condom-effectiveness study that was done at the University of Southern California? (mascot: .... wait for it.... Trojans)

[ConspiRaider]

I would imagine that eyesight problems are an issue.....
True.

Evaluating the support system of Twin Spheroids can, over time, cause a twoofer to go blind.

[maccy]

Evidence of a relationship between pornography and paranoid fantasists?

The trilogy was originally written between 1969 and 1971 while Wilson and Shea were both associate editors for Playboy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playboy) magazine. As part of the role, they dealt with correspondence from the general public on the subject of civil liberties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties), much of which involved paranoid rants about imagined conspiracies. The pair began to write a novel with the premise that "all these nuts are right, and every single conspiracy they complain about really exists".[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Illuminatus%21_Trilogy#_note-nuts)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Illuminatus%21_Trilogy#Publishing_history

[defaultdotxbe]

True.

Evaluating the support system of Twin Spheroids can, over time, cause a twoofer to go blind.
next time gravy is at ground zero he should check for hair on their palms

[LashL]

No. I will not, not, NOT make a joke about clue goo.

:D

[Brainache]

Well given Perry Logan's ideas about angry white guys with IQs in the low 80s, I'd say they are exposing themselves to their target demographic.

[valis]

Why are these idiots proud of being in Hustler?

I still recall 1983 when Hustler broke the true story on flight 007 being shot down. It seems that the CIA played subliminal voice commands in the cockpit forcing the pilots to fly off course.

I also remember when they blew the lid off of the AIDS cover up; seems it is actually caused by KY jelly, not a virus (I am not making these up). There is nothing so crazy that Larry Flint won't publish it.

You know what is great about Hustler though? The women in it look obtainable. When I look at Playboy I see the type of women that I would never have a chance with in real life. When I look at Hustler I see the type of woman I can relate to. Just saying.

[Bell]

I bet many people have "pulled it" while looking at Hustler.

:covereyes

[jhunter1163]

Did it fall faster than free fall?

(hears groans from all over the world)

[ConspiRaider]

No, but I once Googled Halle Berry in her Catwoman suit. I'm only human.

NOW I understand the meaning of this, Mr. Logan. Very nice picture of Halle, she who is orginally from my original hometown of Cleveland, Ohio.

I think it'll be awhile before I get tired of her pic on yer site...

[Firestone]

What a lousy article ! :eye-poppi

Its all there:

"Steven Jones work is peer-reviewed"
"Hufschmid is a researcher"
"NIST has admitted that the South Tower came down in ten second and the North in nine"
"Judy Wood ..." :)
Korey Rowe when asked if there is a chance of the CT being wrong: "This is not a house of cards, you can take away some of the weaker evidence, but not the physical evidence, the scientific fact. And you can't take away the common sense of it. The idea that 19 Arab hijackers could take over four planes in U.S. airspace for two hours with no interference from the military is prepostereous."
Alex Jones: "65 % of the American people know that 9/11 was an inside job."

PNAC, Northwoods, squibs, molten steel ... it's all there.

I guess I cannot link the whole thing for copyright reasons.
But I think I now know where 28th Kingdom works! :)

[Oliver]

The scans/PDF of the Hustler-Magazine are online now:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/5437

[Pardalis]

Wankers.

[uk_dave]

Wankers.

Succinct and to the point.

Gets my vote.

[ConspiRaider]

Thanks much, Oliver, for posting the link to the Hustler story.

I loaded the PDF and, holding off on brunch until afterwards, forced myself to read The Tripe. A prudent decision on not eating beforehand. The pukery and turdliness reeking from the Hustler "investigation" is enough to challenge the stasis of anyone with a wrought-iron stomach.

Cleverly assembled, deceptively revealed - this story is yet again demonstrative of how skilled the lying Inside Jobbers can be, when the "right" people are set to the task of winning over wannabe woos. Someone leaning towards woo can be swayed by just this single article. It is very skillfully done. By revealing Inside Job support from a broad spectrum of players - scientists to whistleblowers to talk show hosts to celebrities - the wannabe woo is left with the impression that it would be crazy, even dangerous, to NOT accept the premise of vast conspiracy.

I remember the day I decided to never look at another Hustler magazine. It was after seeing the sick and mean-spirited content levelled at the deceased Princess Diana. Now, my evaluation of princesses, kings, dukes, queens and so forth essentially mirrors the attitudes protrayed in Monty Python's Holy Grail movie. As also noted in the film with Audrey Hepburn called Roman Holiday, Eddie Albert's character states: "C'mon Joe, it's open season on princesses!". But what Larry Flynt was doing went WAY over the line. The depths of horrific disgust had never been plumbed so completely. I realized then that something permanently wrong had happened inside the brain of Larry Flynt. And I didn't need to buy or see his magazine, ever again.

The lies, the very careful skimming of conspiracy statements, the editing, the pictures - this is a masterpiece of vomit-inducing deception. That is, to those of us who have the ability to live in the real world and critically analyze its ebbs and flows. For the wannabe woos? This is all they'll ever need to start the idiotic chanting of "inside job, inside job!".

[jhunter1163]

I can't understand how it is they think that getting published in Hustler helps them. For one thing, no one reads the magazine. For another, even if you DO read it, you don't admit it. Not in public anyway.

[Architect]

Thanks much, Oliver, for posting the link to the Hustler story.

I loaded the PDF and, holding off on brunch until afterwards, forced myself to read The Tripe. A prudent decision on not eating beforehand. The pukery and turdliness reeking from the Hustler "investigation" is enough to challenge the stasis of anyone with a wrought-iron stomach.

Cleverly assembled, deceptively revealed - this story is yet again demonstrative of how skilled the lying Inside Jobbers can be, when the "right" people are set to the task of winning over wannabe woos. Someone leaning towards woo can be swayed by just this single article. It is very skillfully done. By revealing Inside Job support from a broad spectrum of players - scientists to whistleblowers to talk show hosts to celebrities - the wannabe woo is left with the impression that it would be crazy, even dangerous, to NOT accept the premise of vast conspiracy.

<snip>

The lies, the very careful skimming of conspiracy statements, the editing, the pictures - this is a masterpiece of vomit-inducing deception. That is, to those of us who have the ability to live in the real world and critically analyze its ebbs and flows. For the wannabe woos? This is all they'll ever need to start the idiotic chanting of "inside job, inside job!".



Agreed. And well put.

[~enigma~]

Thanks much, Oliver, for posting the link to the Hustler story.

I loaded the PDF and, holding off on brunch until afterwards, forced myself to read The Tripe. A prudent decision on not eating beforehand. The pukery and turdliness reeking from the Hustler "investigation" is enough to challenge the stasis of anyone with a wrought-iron stomach.

Cleverly assembled, deceptively revealed - this story is yet again demonstrative of how skilled the lying Inside Jobbers can be, when the "right" people are set to the task of winning over wannabe woos. Someone leaning towards woo can be swayed by just this single article. It is very skillfully done. By revealing Inside Job support from a broad spectrum of players - scientists to whistleblowers to talk show hosts to celebrities - the wannabe woo is left with the impression that it would be crazy, even dangerous, to NOT accept the premise of vast conspiracy.

I remember the day I decided to never look at another Hustler magazine. It was after seeing the sick and mean-spirited content levelled at the deceased Princess Diana. Now, my evaluation of princesses, kings, dukes, queens and so forth essentially mirrors the attitudes protrayed in Monty Python's Holy Grail movie. As also noted in the film with Audrey Hepburn called Roman Holiday, Eddie Albert's character states: "C'mon Joe, it's open season on princesses!". But what Larry Flynt was doing went WAY over the line. The depths of horrific disgust had never been plumbed so completely. I realized then that something permanently wrong had happened inside the brain of Larry Flynt. And I didn't need to buy or see his magazine, ever again.

The lies, the very careful skimming of conspiracy statements, the editing, the pictures - this is a masterpiece of vomit-inducing deception. That is, to those of us who have the ability to live in the real world and critically analyze its ebbs and flows. For the wannabe woos? This is all they'll ever need to start the idiotic chanting of "inside job, inside job!".Give Hustler a call and get their side of the story. It is quite revealing how they say researchers may have but they never use the term scientists. Did you really think they would print Korey rowes quote about LC:FC having a 20 million dollar budget if they thought these guys were legit. I mean they call Eric Hufschmid (a known holocaust denier and anti semite) a researcher?! They say Steven Jones paper was peer reviewed?!? Not even going to waste my time commenting about Alex "The Spider @ http://911verses.com/underground/Over_the_Edge_2005-09-30_Alex_Spider_Jones.MP3" Jones. They didn't verify any info except what they were told by the LC crew and Alex "The Spider - thanks Perry" Jones. The Hustler article is another South Park in disguise.

[mrfreeze]

Isn't that theory giving a bit too much intellectual credit to a porno magazine? And a third tier one at that.

[chipmunk stew]

The name of the magazine is appropriate for these guys.

Oh well, this goes along well with their new marketing strategy:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/babe2.gif

Frankly, I find it much more convincing than all their :words:

[T.A.M.]

Hustler is essentially the "Enquirer" with Nudie Pictures, so I do not see how anything productive to promote their movement can come of it.

TAM

[boloboffin]

Even Hustler put a disclaimer on the Alex Jones interview. Gad.

[Pardalis]

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/babe2.gif


OH MY GOD! 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB??!!!!

:eek:

[HyJinX]

I was going to ask one of the twoofers if I could borrow their copy of Hustler in order to read the article, but was told that it wouldn't be of much use...since all the pages were stuck together. ;)

[ConspiRaider]

The name of the magazine is appropriate for these guys.

Oh well, this goes along well with their new marketing strategy:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/babe2.gif

Frankly, I find it much more convincing than all their :words:
I too, capitulate. They spe... I mean she speaks to me. 9/11 was an Inside Job!

[Horatius]

The name of the magazine is appropriate for these guys.

Oh well, this goes along well with their new marketing strategy:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/babe2.gif

Frankly, I find it much more convincing than all their :words:

OH MY GOD! 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB??!!!!

:eek:

I think they meant "Boob" job there....

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think they meant "Boob" job there....
:boggled: 9/11 was a boob job?

[Pardalis]

I was going to ask one of the twoofers if I could borrow their copy of Hustler in order to read the article, but was told that it wouldn't be of much use...since all the pages were stuck together. ;)

It would be the first time I would go to a store and say to the clerk: "I really just want to read the article" and this actually be true.

[Horatius]

:boggled: 9/11 was a boob job?

Yep. A job done by boobs. Or for boobs, I'm not sure which.....I just know boobs were involved somehow.......

[Horatius]

It would be the first time I would go to a store and say to the clerk: "I really just want to read the article" and this actually be true.

Except for the "just" part. Come on, admit it!

It's the perfect excuse to indulge your inner perve.

[Pardalis]

Now "Bush" seems to have an entire new meaning...

[defaultdotxbe]

Now "Bush" seems to have an entire new meaning...
what does that make our friend RemoveBush?

[chipmunk stew]

Yep. A job done by boobs. Or for boobs, I'm not sure which.....I just know boobs were involved somehow.......
It always comes back to boobs.

[JonnyFive]

I bet many people have "pulled it" while looking at Hustler.

id like to give her an "inside job"

Now "Bush" seems to have an entire new meaning...

You know, I didn't feel like causing myself grievous bodily harm when I woke up, but now I'm not so sure. ;)

[Pardalis]

Except for the "just" part. Come on, admit it!

It's the perfect excuse to indulge your inner perve.

Well, might as well read the rest, who knows what other astounding revelations could be inside?

[ConspiRaider]

Well, might as well read the rest, who knows what other astounding revelations could be inside?
Yes. The true height of Twin Spheroids can be determined within its revealing pages.

[Pardalis]

On a serious note, this all just shows to tell:

Forget the NY Times, the Washington Post of the Figaro, the most crucial scoop in recent history is being published by Hustler...

;)

[JonnyFive]

On a serious note, this all just shows to tell:

Forget the NY Times, the Washington Post of the Figaro, the most crucial scoop in recent history is being published by Hustler...

;)

Any port in a storm.

[T.A.M.]

I dunno about 9/11 being a boob job, but the guys at LC really MUFFED this one up...lol

TAM

[Spindrift]

Ah, maybe this is the "visual stimulation" of the twin towers that 28th Kingdom is always asking for.

[HyJinX]

Ah, maybe this is the "visual stimulation" of the twin towers that 28th Kingdom is always asking for.


BUH DUM CHING

[JonnyFive]

Ah, maybe this is the "visual stimulation" of the twin towers that 28th Kingdom is always asking for.

Are you saying that 28th Kingdom has two wangs?

I'm really confused and disturbed by this turn of events.

[Triterope]

I can't understand how it is they think that getting published in Hustler helps them.

I think any unchecked mainstream dissemination of 9/11 conspiracy nonsense is a bad thing.

[jhunter1163]

Meanwhile, the Twoofers will keep abreast of this developing story and will continue to call for busts among the Government.

[HeyLeroy]

Ah, maybe this is the "visual stimulation" of the twin towers that 28th Kingdom is always asking for.BUH DUM CHING

Dont'cha mean 'BOW chicka BOW WOWWWW'?:D

[ConspiRaider]

UP-TO-DATE SELECTED DOUBLE ENTENDRES on INSIDE JOB vs. HUSTLER:
(in order of appearance)

1. Steven Jones is the centerfold.

2. ...the story was "going to blow" any minute, "just one last push".

3. While they and their ilk will try to pass this off as "Exposure for the Truth" it is clearly ATTENTIONWHORING/ATTENTIONSLUTTING.

4. I bet many people have "pulled it" while looking at Hustler.

5. I'd like to give her an "inside job"!

6. It could be that the twoofers like Hustler because it sharpens their image analyzing skills of holes and plane shaped objects.

7. I wonder if a man's - er - tower has ever collapsed in 6.6 seconds soon after "reading" Hustler?

8. Don't even try to make a joke about pyroclastic flow, let's not even go there...

9. Evaluating the support system of Twin Spheroids can, over time, cause a twoofer to go blind.

10. Well given Perry Logan's ideas about angry white guys with IQs in the low 80s, I'd say they are exposing themselves to their target demographic.

11. Wankers.

12. Even Hustler put a disclaimer on the Alex Jones interview. Gad.

13. 9/11 was a boob job?

14. Now "Bush" seems to have an entire new meaning...

15. I dunno about 9/11 being a boob job, but the guys at LC really MUFFED this one up.

16. Meanwhile, the Twoofers will keep abreast of this developing story and will continue to call for busts among the Government.

:D

[Pardalis]

Keep 'em coming! Ooops :o

[defaultdotxbe]

hey, i made the list!

.....now if i only i knew if that was a good thing or a bad thing

[Brainache]

So has Hustler finally put the UN into the CTs?



Sorry it's all I've got.

[Horatius]

UP-TO-DATE SELECTED DOUBLE ENTENDRES on INSIDE JOB vs. HUSTLER:
(in order of appearance)

1. Steven Jones is the centerfold.

2. ...the story was "going to blow" any minute, "just one last push".

3. While they and their ilk will try to pass this off as "Exposure for the Truth" it is clearly ATTENTIONWHORING/ATTENTIONSLUTTING.

4. I bet many people have "pulled it" while looking at Hustler.

5. I'd like to give her an "inside job"!

6. It could be that the twoofers like Hustler because it sharpens their image analyzing skills of holes and plane shaped objects.

7. I wonder if a man's - er - tower has ever collapsed in 6.6 seconds soon after "reading" Hustler?

8. Don't even try to make a joke about pyroclastic flow, let's not even go there...

9. Evaluating the support system of Twin Spheroids can, over time, cause a twoofer to go blind.

10. Well given Perry Logan's ideas about angry white guys with IQs in the low 80s, I'd say they are exposing themselves to their target demographic.

11. Wankers.

12. Even Hustler put a disclaimer on the Alex Jones interview. Gad.

13. 9/11 was a boob job?

14. Now "Bush" seems to have an entire new meaning...

15. I dunno about 9/11 being a boob job, but the guys at LC really MUFFED this one up.

16. Meanwhile, the Twoofers will keep abreast of this developing story and will continue to call for busts among the Government.

:D


Now all we need is the address for letters to the editor.....

[Architect]

UP-TO-DATE SELECTED DOUBLE ENTENDRES on INSIDE JOB vs. HUSTLER:
(in order of appearance)

11. Wankers.


That's barely a single entrendre

[boloboffin]

Finally, Stephen Jones has been "peer reviewed."

Seriously, LC3 has a budget of $20 million? What the [rule8] are they spending it on?

[JimBenArm]

Finally, Stephen Jones has been "peer reviewed."

Seriously, LC3 has a budget of $20 million? What the [rule8] are they spending it on?

Copies of Hustler to give to their mothers!

[T.A.M.]

No one bothered to tell them that all they had to do was right up a really dirty nasty letter and send it in, and they would have been printed in Hustler Long ago.

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

Does anybody have a source for the "20 million" budget, except that Rowe turd?

:boggled:

[boloboffin]

That's the first place I've seen the $20 million figure.

Hey, I've got an account over at LC - maybe I'll ask 'em.

[slingblade]

Yes it is Larry Flint's rag. Steven Jones is the centerfold :)

What are they supposed to do. Show Hustler to people on the street?


That's really hard to do with the pages all stuck together.....

[~enigma~]

Isn't that theory giving a bit too much intellectual credit to a porno magazine? And a third tier one at that.
Does Hustler ever print satire?

[~enigma~]

what does that make our friend RemoveBush?Shaved
:big:

[defaultdotxbe]

Shaved
:big:
http://www.cam.cornell.edu/~mblais/Shaved%20Cat%202.jpg

can i say it? or is it a violation of rule 8?

[~enigma~]

Finally, Stephen Jones has been "peer reviewed."

Seriously, LC3 has a budget of $20 million? What the [rule8] are they spending it on?
19.9 million spent on buying a satirical article in Hustler and purchasing copies for all the woowoso.

[~enigma~]

That's really hard to do with the pages all stuck together.....I would love to see them showing porn at GZ. Really would do wonders for their image.

[Firestone]

Here (http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2007/01/loose-change-teddy-bears-hell-no-are.html) Avery's "explains" the 20 million $:

Just thought I'd hop on here and clarify something. If you've read the Hustler article mentioned below, you'll read that "the new budget's over $20 million."

We do not have a $20 million budget. We do not have any budget, because nothing has even been signed. All we're doing at this point is negotiating, however, all negotiators are on-board 100% as far as we can tell.

If I had to guess, off the top of my head, our budget is approximately $1 million. For reference, Fahrenheit 9/11 cost approximately $6 million to produce.

Our prints and advertising budget, however, may far exceed $20 million. Film costs money, so do advertisements.

So, to all those chanting loudly, "Loose Change has sold out," or feel that they are justified writing an article about that number to make us look bad, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. :confused:

Did he take writing lessons with 28th Kingdom???

[Oliver]

Here (http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2007/01/loose-change-teddy-bears-hell-no-are.html) Avery's "explains" the 20 million $:

:confused:

Did he take writing lessons with 28th Kingdom???

"...nothing has even been signed (http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2007/01/loose-change-teddy-bears-hell-no-are.html)"... No. Words. :boggled:

[uk_dave]

So, to all those chanting loudly, "Loose Change has sold out," or feel that they are justified writing an article about that number to make us look bad, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree.Ha! That'll come when (if) the woowoos ever get to see the watered down, careful as she goes, tread carefully, LC:FC.

Did someone say weak LIHOP?

[boloboffin]

OK. So that's settled.

I mean, for $20 million, you would think that one of them could have bought a clue.

[Oliver]

OK. So that's settled.

I mean, for $20 million, you would think that one of them could have bought a clue.

Or an own "truth" investigation*... :rolleyes:

*Disclaimer: Not talking about 9/11 investigators Killtown/Hufschmid here... :covereyes

[maccy]

Ha! That'll come when (if) the woowoos ever get to see the watered down, careful as she goes, tread carefully, LC:FC.

Did someone say weak LIHOP?

If Dylan has any sense he'll pitch as a documentary about the "9/11 Truth Movement" and the things it alleges and not make any definite statements himself. That's the only thing that I can imagine would get him a deal. If he gets a deal, of course, he won't care if the movement thinks he's betrayed them.

[Coritani]

Well, the WTC was a big, hard, tube-in-a-tube design, so Hustler probably would be interested.

[chipmunk stew]

Here (http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2007/01/loose-change-teddy-bears-hell-no-are.html) Avery's "explains" the 20 million $:

:confused:

Did he take writing lessons with 28th Kingdom???
Unfreakinbelievable...
So, to all those chanting loudly, "Loose Change has sold out," or feel that they are justified writing an article about that number to make us look bad, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree.
Why wouldn't a journalist feel justified writing an article about a budget number quoted by your FRAKKING PRODUCER?!?!
"Loose Change Producer Lies About Non-Existent Budget"--sounds like a justifiable story to me.

[ponderingturtle]

Maybe they think they'll gain more followers by having an article on Hustler, knowing full well that men's critical thinking skills drop to - 100 when reading that magazine.

Wait a minute are you suggesting that the letters and such are anything other than 100% factual? But isn't hustler renowned for it journalistic integrity?

[ponderingturtle]

The name of the magazine is appropriate for these guys.

Oh well, this goes along well with their new marketing strategy:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/babe2.gif

Frankly, I find it much more convincing than all their :words:

I fail to see any words in that image. That is the problem with such a strategy, who reads the words?

[ponderingturtle]

Yep. A job done by boobs. Or for boobs, I'm not sure which.....I just know boobs were involved somehow.......

I have it. The whole thing was a plan to remove all the phallic representations in the NYC sky line and try to get them replaced with domes and the like that are more Boob like.

[ponderingturtle]

Finally, Stephen Jones has been "peer reviewed."

Seriously, LC3 has a budget of $20 million? What the [rule8] are they spending it on?

Hookers and Drugs just like the hollywood stars really.

[ponderingturtle]

http://www.cam.cornell.edu/~mblais/Shaved%20Cat%202.jpg

can i say it? or is it a violation of rule 8?

And if you poored a bucket of hot water on the feline would the rule 8 violation get worse?

[Firestone]

The US Congress will soon know the TRUTH !!!

Apologies if this has already been posted but apparently a copy of Hustler magazine is posted for free to the office of every member of the US congress every month for free, although i wonder how many of them actually read it ?

LC Forum (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2345&view=findpost&p=11028451)Wonder if it is true ... :)

[~enigma~]

The US Congress will soon know the TRUTH !!!

Wonder if it is true ... :)They really do have some good imagination but they are not in reality land :)

[GlennB]

http://www.cam.cornell.edu/~mblais/Shaved%20Cat%202.jpg

can i say it? or is it a violation of rule 8?

Never mind the puns.

No cat in history has ever looked more miffed.
It just isn't possible to look miffeder than that.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Whilst we joke, many more are being exposed to the conspiracy theories. Wow, what if they end up being right?

[JimBenArm]

Whilst we joke, many more are being exposed to the conspiracy theories. Wow, what if they end up being right?
Wow, what if monkeys flew out their butts?

[ConspiRaider]

I have it. The whole thing was a plan to remove all the phallic representations in the NYC sky line and try to get them replaced with domes and the like that are more Boob like.
I think that's it.

Hustler secretly wants to build Twin Spheroids in the City That Never Sleeps.

The "radio transmitters" on top of the Twin Spheroids will be of variable size - depending on the temperature.

I wonder who gets the contract of tying down and restraining the Twin Spheroids during inclement weather?

Do you think the elevators will jiggle while squeezing their way up through the cavernous interiors of the Twin Spheroids?

[Pardalis]

Wow, what if they end up being right?

If they end up being right, they'll get picked up by a more reputable news outlet than Hustler.

Good luck with that.

[chipmunk stew]

Whilst we joke, many more are being exposed to the conspiracy theories. Wow, what if they end up being right?
Wow, that would be something, huh!

So, they'd be right...which would make us wrong!

Wow! That would really be something...wow...

[JonnyFive]

Whilst we joke, many more are being exposed to the conspiracy theories. Wow, what if they end up being right?

Who are you and what exactly is your point?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Who are you and what exactly is your point?

Who are you?

Nice way to welcome somebody to your club!

The point was, what if some of these theories are correct? More people are going to be exposed to the possibility that things might not be as they seem; not as we were told. I suppose they'll all just be Hustler-reading perverts. But Hustler-reading perverts are people too! (I've been known to imbibe).

Who knows; maybe there will be a new investigation, with subpoena power and testimony under oath.

Or has every single aspect of the official story been proven to be true here at this forum? And every single alternate theory fully debunked?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

If they end up being right, they'll get picked up by a more reputable news outlet than Hustler.

Good luck with that.

I was trying to think of more reputable outlets. Sad to say, I can't think of too many!

But then, that depends on your definition of "reputable."

[ConspiRaider]

Who are you?

Nice way to welcome somebody to your club!

The point was, what if some of these theories are correct? More people are going to be exposed to the possibility that things might not be as they seem; not as we were told. I suppose they'll all just be Hustler-reading perverts. But Hustler-reading perverts are people too! (I've been known to imbibe).

Who knows; maybe there will be a new investigation, with subpoena power and testimony under oath.

Or has every single aspect of the official story been proven to be true here at this forum? And every single alternate theory fully debunked?
Subpoena power given to whom, and who are the projected recipients of these subpoenas?

Name an "alternate" theory that has not yet been debunked. Be a good way to earn your stripes here.

[Pardalis]

I was trying to think of more reputable outlets. Sad to say, I can't think of too many!

But then, that depends on your definition of "reputable."

Oh my, not another anti-government one...

[jhunter1163]

I haven't seen anything from the Twoofers, and I mean ANYTHING, that doesn't have a compelling or at least plausible alternate explanation. But maybe SCG will surprise me.

[Alt+F4]

And every single alternate theory fully debunked?

I've yet to see an alternative theory. All I've seen is bad evidence, shoddy reporting, embarrassingly awful science, and outright lies from the CTers.

If you do have an alternative theory I'm sure we would all love to hear it.

BTW, welcome!

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Subpoena power given to whom, and who are the projected recipients of these subpoenas?

Name an "alternate" theory that has not yet been debunked. Be a good way to earn your stripes here.

Have you guys here proven that Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks? I'd like to read that. I think Robert Mueller might be interested in reading that, too. I've been looking for a thread, but can't find it yet. (I'm learning my way around).

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Oh my, not another anti-government one...

Ha! Fallacy! I expressed disdain for the media, not the government. Careful there.

[ConspiRaider]

Have you guys here proven that Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks? I'd like to read that. I think Robert Mueller might be interested in reading that, too. I've been looking for a thread, but can't find it yet. (I'm learning my way around).
How about if you tell us why you do not believe 9/11 was the work of OBL, and then lay out your theory as to who you think was responsible. I think Mueller would be more interested in your assessment.

As Gravy says: Proceed.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

How about if you tell us why you do not believe 9/11 was the work of OBL, and then lay out your theory as to who you think was responsible. I think Mueller would be more interested in your assessment.

As Gravy says: Proceed.

Well, I asked first. (wink) Being that this is a skeptics group, I would assume that everybody here is, or at least was initially, skeptical of the Bin Laden theory. Until proven. Am I wrong?

I guess I'm trying to find out what it is that the skeptics here are skeptical of. Is it anything that can't be backed up with evidence/proof? Or just anything that is counter to the "conventional wisdom." (e.g. the official government version).

[T.A.M.]

Me personally, i think OBL lied initially, as he has admitted off the record to doing so, as he feels this is how Israel and America do things. He later then confessed, and has many times since spoken of the attacks as his (via al-qaeda) doing. I believe his confession and many subsequent admissions.

How about you Skeptical guy....wait let me take a stab.

You think that he didnt do it, and his initial response, the denial was the real deal. You think that the subsequent confession tape is a forgery/fake, and that all of his subsequent admissions or "taking credit" was either done purposely because he is a CIA plant, or was done, because he was opportunistic and felt the best way to improve his notoriety was to take the blame, and make himself look like a real "bad boy".

Am I even close?

TAM

[Alt+F4]

I guess I'm trying to find out what it is that the skeptics here are skeptical of. Is it anything that can't be backed up with evidence/proof? Or just anything that is counter to the "conventional wisdom." (e.g. the official government version).

I for one, have some questions that are not answered to my satisfaction by what I like to call the "generally accepted version" of that days events and the aftermath. For example, according to this story in USATODAY:
"In New York City, medical examiners used DNA profiles furnished by the FBI to match body parts with three of the 10 hijackers who crashed there."

Where did the FBI get these DNA profiles? Family members of the hijackers?

I have a few other small issues but I've seen NOTHING significiant to convince me that anyone other than 19 highjackers committed these crimes.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-11-sept11-remains_x.htm

[T.A.M.]

Where did the FBI get these DNA profiles? Family members of the hijackers?

I just assumed that they took samples from the appartments and hotel rooms they stayed in, as well as the rental car they found.

TAM

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Subpoena power given to whom, and who are the projected recipients of these subpoenas?

Given to an Independent Counsel, a Congressional Panel, a court of law. To name a few. I've read a couple arguments here against an international investigation, and I hope it doesn't come to that.

As for recipients; FAA, Intel agents, those who have been put under gag order for national security. I don't have time tonight to list them all, but there is a lengthy list that I read recently at another board. I can copy/paste if you'd like.

Name an "alternate" theory that has not yet been debunked. Be a good way to earn your stripes here.

I'm still deciding whether I want to bother earning my stripes here. I'm trying to find out what this is about. Somebody at another board recommended I drop by.

That said, I am intrigued by the many recent articles in the "alternate" media that discuss the possibility that we have a Mossad-riddled Pentagon and State Dept. But I see if anybody even shows an interest in discussing that topic here, they are ridiculed and accused of blaming "the jooooooooooose." (Was that too many o's?)

So, no theory at this point; just reading and learning. I trust everybody here continues to read and learn.

[T.A.M.]

I love evidence. I love cold hard FACTS. I also deeply appreciate the opinions of EXPERTS in a given field. Even more, I deeply appreciate the opinions of hundreds of experts in a given field. I consider witness testimony reliable only if it is VERY multiple in nature, and has details within it that are corroberated.

I hate hearsay. I dislike, though occasionally engage in, speculation. I consider non expert opinion worthless. I consider spotty, or singular witness testimony weak, and anonymous testimony weaker still.

I trust CNN. I trust, to a lesser degree, MSNBC. I trust CBC. I do not trust "Prisonplanet.com". I do not trust "worldreports.org". I do not trust "alternative media" that clearly exhibits an agenda.

TAM:)

[Alt+F4]

Given to an Independent Counsel, a Congressional Panel, a court of law. To name a few. I've read a couple arguments here against an international investigation, and I hope it doesn't come to that.

The problem with a new investigation is that the CTers don't trust anyone who doesn't already believe their theories. Government, scientists, main-stream media, the insurance industry, the foreign media. Since these groups haven't spoken "the truth" as they see it, then they must be "in on it" too.

No matter who would be involved with a new investigation the CTers would yell foul if it didn't come to their conclusion: inside job.

[The Almond]

And every single alternate theory fully debunked?

I think you've hit upon the reason why I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories. Numerous independent investigators, the least of which include the Loose Change producers, Judy Wood, Steven Jones and James Fetzer, all looking at what they consider to be data and evidence have all come up with different theories. Judy Wood thinks a space microwave melted the towers, and Jones thinks thermite did it.

Why, if everyone is looking at the same evidence, are there so many competing conspiracy theories?

Consider now that a collaboration between NIST and 200 different researchers from the US and Canada all managed to agree on the same conclusion while using valid research techniques and scientifically accurate principles. The research has been largely accepted by the scientific and engineering community without dispute.

If you're interested in convincing people here, I might suggest a strategy:
1) Select an alternative theory of how the WTC collapsed
2) Show corroborating evidence for that theory. For instance, if thermite brought down the towers, show who bought it, how it got there, who signed the orders, what parties were involved, who was movtivated to do it, etc.
3) Show how the alternative theory encapsulates MORE of the observable evidence than the NIST theory. Back this claim up with relevant data and calculations.
4) Publish or submit for publication a paper which shows steps 1, 2 and 3 to a reputible, peer-reviewed journal. Suggestions might be:
Nature
Scientific American
Journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Physical Review
Journal of the American Concrete Institute
Materials Science
Geochemica
Engineering News Record
American Journal of Mathematics

That would be very impressive. It would be even more impressive if the paper were so well researched and so clearly presented that all of the Truth movement supported it.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I trust CNN. I trust, to a lesser degree, MSNBC. I trust CBC. I do not trust "Prisonplanet.com". I do not trust "worldreports.org". I do not trust "alternative media" that clearly exhibits an agenda.

TAM:)

See, I don't trust CNN. Nor MSNBC, although I do watch Keith O. (I certainly do not trust FOX.) Why do you trust them? I used to too.

Don't you think that huge corporate media outlets, owned by defense contractors and citizens of other nations, have a glaring agenda? Equal to or greater than the "alternative" outlets you listed?

TAM, what do you think PrisonPlanet's agenda is? I'm curious. I might be missing something. Is it T-shirt and DVD sales? (I notice those are sold here too.) I'm not being confrontational, I am curious what you think. I do pop on there from time to time, and I notice that many of the articles linked there are from mainstream media, and foreign media.

[ConspiRaider]

Given to an Independent Counsel, a Congressional Panel, a court of law. To name a few. I've read a couple arguments here against an international investigation, and I hope it doesn't come to that.

As for recipients; FAA, Intel agents, those who have been put under gag order for national security. I don't have time tonight to list them all, but there is a lengthy list that I read recently at another board. I can copy/paste if you'd like.

I'm still deciding whether I want to bother earning my stripes here. I'm trying to find out what this is about. Somebody at another board recommended I drop by.

That said, I am intrigued by the many recent articles in the "alternate" media that discuss the possibility that we have a Mossad-riddled Pentagon and State Dept. But I see if anybody even shows an interest in discussing that topic here, they are ridiculed and accused of blaming "the jooooooooooose." (Was that too many o's?)

So, no theory at this point; just reading and learning. I trust everybody here continues to read and learn.
It appears to me as if you are stunting.

You are very familiar with the JREF forum, but are trying to come across as somebody who just "dropped by" via "a friend". And, there is just the slightest hint of condescension in your final sentence. Newbies don't do that - they tread a bit more lightly and it's apparent. Your posts indicate you are very familiar with 9/11 theories, that you don't buy the official story, and that you may very well have been here under a different name.

Some of us here are in favor of another 9/11 investigation. Including me. No foreign investigation. This happened to the USA, we're best suited to analyze it. We definitely don't need to outsource this.

But I suspect we'll differ with you on the thrust of another investigation - the hub from which the direction of it proceeds. You'll want its POV to be disproving an Inside Job. Our POVs vary, but I'd say they would proceed from determining, in colloquial terms, how we got caught with our pants down. Who screwed up. Why they screwed up. We've got a huge intelligence apparatus, a huge military, a giant-sized federal government. Yet this thing slipped by all that and occurred.

[Alt+F4]

Don't you think that huge corporate media outlets, owned by defense contractors and citizens of other nations, have a glaring agenda? Equal to or greater than the "alternative" outlets you listed?

I certainly do. But if the evidence for a conspiracy is a clear as the CTers say why hasn't ANY of the mainstream media picked up on it as a serious story? Don't you think the liberal, Bush-hating New York Times would love the Pulitzer? What about the CBC and the BBC? Do you think the worldwide media is all under control?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I think you've hit upon the reason why I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories. Numerous independent investigators, the least of which include the Loose Change producers, Judy Wood, Steven Jones and James Fetzer, all looking at what they consider to be data and evidence have all come up with different theories. Judy Wood thinks a space microwave melted the towers, and Jones thinks thermite did it.

Why, if everyone is looking at the same evidence, are there so many competing conspiracy theories?

Consider now that a collaboration between NIST and 200 different researchers from the US and Canada all managed to agree on the same conclusion while using valid research techniques and scientifically accurate principles. The research has been largely accepted by the scientific and engineering community without dispute.

If you're interested in convincing people here, I might suggest a strategy:
1) Select an alternative theory of how the WTC collapsed
2) Show corroborating evidence for that theory. For instance, if thermite brought down the towers, show who bought it, how it got there, who signed the orders, what parties were involved, who was movtivated to do it, etc.
3) Show how the alternative theory encapsulates MORE of the observable evidence than the NIST theory. Back this claim up with relevant data and calculations.
4) Publish or submit for publication a paper which shows steps 1, 2 and 3 to a reputible, peer-reviewed journal. Suggestions might be:
Nature
Scientific American
Journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Physical Review
Journal of the American Concrete Institute
Materials Science
Geochemica
Engineering News Record
American Journal of Mathematics

That would be very impressive. It would be even more impressive if the paper were so well researched and so clearly presented that all of the Truth movement supported it.

Very valid point. And one of two things will happen: they will continue to flail around, and come apart through infighting, or solid leadership will emerge, and what you illustrate above will happen; a focused panel, corroboration, etc. I guess we'll see. I'm keeping an open mind to any and all new theories.

Of course, it would help to close the case for the government if they would provide the evidence that it was Bin Laden and Al Qaida. The FBI admits they don't have enough. That's disturbing.

[The Almond]

Very valid point. And one of two things will happen: they will continue to flail around, and come apart through infighting, or solid leadership will emerge, and what you illustrate above will happen; a focused panel, corroboration, etc. I guess we'll see.

My money is on the infighting. What I've noticed during the last few months of studying the Truth movement is that it is largely driven by ego. It is the realization of a paranoid fantasy whose validity is protected only by ego and the intense desire to be declared "right."

Lyte Trip announced in November that our world would come tumbling down after he released his evidence. 28th Kingdom is "taking it easy" on us old timers because he doesn't want to blow our minds with his truth. What appears to govern the Truth movement is not the validity of their conclusions, but rather the conviction behind it. It is a war of ego, and Steven Jones vs. Jim Fetzer is a perfect example.

I'm keeping an open mind to any and all new theories.

I'm curious about this statement. Do you not believe that the NIST theory, which has followed all 4 of my steps, is the most logical theory in explaining the collapse of the WTC towers? Or are your criticisms directed largely at the administration and the intelligence community? Do you believe that airplanes, flown by islamic hijackers, attacked and destroyed the Pentagon and WTC 1, 2 and 7?

Of course, it would help to close the case for the government if they would provide the evidence that it was Bin Laden and Al Qaida. The FBI admits they don't have enough. That's disturbing.
If the FBI were interested in framing bin Laden, how could they have too little evidence? If you're fabricating it all, why not fabricate everything?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

if the evidence for a conspiracy is a clear as the CTers say why hasn't ANY of the mainstream media picked up on it as a serious story? Don't you think the liberal, Bush-hating New York Times would love the Pulitzer? What about the CBC and the BBC? Do you think the worldwide media is all under control?

Well, I lean more toward that media-under-control paradigm than most here, I guess. It's all about money. And who the ownership is connected to.

I don't see the New York Times being as "Bush-hating" as some see it. Maybe Bush-blackmailing? Also, consider that although breaking a story of this magnitude should win the Pulitzer, the NYT (or any other MSM outlet) would be torched for their failure to break it sooner (read: complicity). Didn't they already apologize for their rush-to-war stance before Iraq? (I don't know much about the CBC or BBC).

Add to that the CIA's (and Mossad's) penchant for getting their own agents placed throughout the MSM, and it leaves a bad smell on the "news." (Can I call it the "nooooooos?") :D

[Gravy]

Of course, it would help to close the case for the government if they would provide the evidence that it was Bin Laden and Al Qaida. The FBI admits they don't have enough. That's disturbing.Welcome, SCG. You'll notice that we will ask you to back your claims with evidence, and we will tend do remind you that questions and opinions do not count as evidence.

Your assertion that the "FBI admits they don't have enough" is false as it pertains to al Qaeda. If you believe that, I strongly recommend that you read the 9/11 Commission report and its ancillary staff statements and reports. And of course, people like KSM and Ramzi Binalshibh are in custody and have apparently provided a wealth of information.

The FBI did say that they don't have enough evidence to directly tie bin Laden to 9/11. His many confessions would not be admissible in court. In addition to the evidence that he committed the crimes for which he is indicted in the U.S., I believe it is prudent to take him at his word that he will continue his murderous ways.

Do you think his calls for jihad against the U.S. are sincere? Do you think he, and Islamic jihadists, present a threat to U.S. life and property?

[Gravy]

Also, consider that although breaking a story of this magnitude should win the Pulitzer, the NYT (or any other MSM outlet) would be torched for their failure to break it sooner (read: complicity).That's nonsense. You're certainly off to an irrational start here.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

"alternative" media is a bunk phrase, just as "alternative" medicine is a bunk phrase. Either the news source follows the standards and practices of reputable journalism or they do not.

[notheist]

Now that they have been in Hustler they can claim their works have been

"Peer Reviewed"

[TheGrunion]

Now that they have been in Hustler they can claim their works have been

"Peer Reviewed"

I suppose that its possible for them to make that claim.

However, it would be a false claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I'm curious about this statement. Do you not believe that the NIST theory, which has followed all 4 of my steps, is the most logical theory in explaining the collapse of the WTC towers? Or are your criticisms directed largely at the administration and the intelligence community? Do you believe that airplanes, flown by islamic hijackers, attacked and destroyed the Pentagon and WTC 1, 2 and 7?

I believe that the NIST report was limited in its scope. I want to know where the core went. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they only covered from the hit to the initiation of collapse. I have not read the entire report, but have read both sides' analysis, and several key parts.

And no, I do not believe that airplanes, flown by islamic hijackers, attacked and destroyed the Pentagon and WTC 1, 2 and 7. There, I said it. You can ask me what I think did happen, but that will come out in discussion. And as I mentioned, I don't claim to know beyond a doubt. But here's a hint; I have, for years, read incessantly about Intel agencies and rogue networks in our government.

If the FBI were interested in framing bin Laden, how could they have too little evidence? If you're fabricating it all, why not fabricate everything?

Consider the possibility that the deed was done, partly from within and partly from the outside, and our President was told who to blame. And consider that OBL could have Bin set up as the patsy this way also.

The one thing that doesn't make sense is: why would Bush falsely blame a known CIA agent and his family business partner?! Surely Michael Moore could dig that info up! (Actually, it was already dug up; Moore borrowed the work of others there). So it must have Bin Bin, right?

I don't buy that. Israeli "art students" tracked the alleged highjackers throughout the country. Much has been written about Atta et al's drug trafficking ties.

There is a lot to think about here. I think the answer to what happened lies more in studying rogue spy networks than it does in controlled demolition, thermate vs. particle beams, etc.

(I know I'm going to get scolded for not providing proof. I wasn't there!)

The one member of the "movement" who's writing and speaking is fascinating is Webster Tarpley. I don't think he has that ego problem some of the others have. Maybe I'm blind. But I do recommend reading his stuff and hearing his radio interviews.

[Alt+F4]

And no, I do not believe that airplanes, flown by islamic hijackers, attacked and destroyed the Pentagon and WTC 1, 2 and 7. There, I said it. You can ask me what I think did happen, but that will come out in discussion.

Why not just say what you do think happened right now?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

skepticalcriticalguy,

A piece of advice. No charge. Don't try to convince us of any grand issues. Start small. Pick one thing that you can prove through objective, verfiable evidence that supports your case. Once agreement is made on that point, move on to the next.

[Pardalis]

Skepticalcriticalguy, read this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2242004&postcount=195

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The FBI did say that they don't have enough evidence to directly tie bin Laden to 9/11. His many confessions would not be admissible in court. In addition to the evidence that he committed the crimes for which he is indicted in the U.S., I believe it is prudent to take him at his word that he will continue his murderous ways.

Do you think his calls for jihad against the U.S. are sincere? Do you think he, and Islamic jihadists, present a threat to U.S. life and property?

I don't speak Arabic, so I haven't personally heard the confessions you are referring to. Am I to assume you are fluent in Arabic? And did the translation correctly? (wink) (smiley's aren't working for me yet).

I think his calls for Jihad are a scam. I think he is still what he was, since the 70s; a CIA asset/agent. And Bush business partner. But you asked me what I think here! So no, no proof. Evidence? there is plenty written about this. I don't think I can post links yet.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

skepticalcriticalguy,

A piece of advice. No charge. Don't try to convince us of any grand issues. Start small. Pick one thing that you can prove through objective, verfiable evidence that supports your case. Once agreement is made on that point, move on to the next.

I hear you, but I keep getting asked what I "think" and "believe." And I also see no point in posting something that has already been discussed 80 times here, so I'll read some threads and see what's been covered.

[DarkMagician]

I don't speak Arabic, so I haven't personally heard the confessions you are referring to. Am I to assume you are fluent in Arabic? And did the translation correctly? (wink) (smiley's aren't working for me yet).

I think his calls for Jihad are a scam. I think he is still what he was, since the 70s; a CIA asset/agent.
There is plenty of evidence against such a relationship, and little for.

And Bush business partner. <snip>
Nope, that was the bin Laden family: the one that disowned Osama back in '93.

[Pardalis]

That said, I am intrigued by the many recent articles in the "alternate" media that discuss the possibility that we have a Mossad-riddled Pentagon and State Dept. But I see if anybody even shows an interest in discussing that topic here, they are ridiculed and accused of blaming "the jooooooooooose." (Was that too many o's?)

I'm curious, why are you more inclined to believe that 9/11 was caused by Jews and Americans instead of the 19 Muslim Integrists from the Al qaeda network?

Do you base your discrimination on faith, racial prejudice or facts?

If you choose the last option, please show us.

[Pardalis]

(I don't know much about the CBC or BBC).

Of course you don't, you're an American, the world doesn't exist beyond your borders.

Wouldn't you think "Le Figaro" or "Le Monde", or any other news outlet oustide the US be interested in this scoop?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

That's nonsense. You're certainly off to an irrational start here.

Why is that? Isn't it the job of the media to watchdog the government? What I said was if inside job turned out to be true, wouldn't they have been remiss, even criminal, in not even investigating the possibility all this time?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Of course you don't, you're an American, the world doesn't exist beyond your borders.

Wouldn't you think "Le Figaro" or "Le Monde", or any other news outlet oustide the US be interested in this scoop?

Ah, the "ugly American" thing. No, I try to read the foreign press when I can! There is only so much time in a day, and I don't know as much about it! I don't need to be attacked for that.

(Now I'll get attacked by Americans saying I have no business reading the foreign press, because they hate us, or something).

[Pardalis]

Did you read this post BTW?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2242004&postcount=195

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I'm curious, why are you more inclined to believe that 9/11 was caused by Jews and Americans instead of the 19 Muslim Integrists from the Al qaeda network?

Do you base your discrimination on faith, racial prejudice or facts?

If you choose the last option, please show us.

Another fallacy. Are these my only choices?

First of all, it's not discrimination. And it's got nothing to do with faith or race.

As I mentioned before, I have spent years reading incessantly about intelligence agencies and rogue networks.

I wonder if your belief that it was the Arabs might have to do with faith and race! Again, the perfect patsies; we've been conditioned for years to believe that Arabs are crazy, after all.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Skepticalcriticalguy, read this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2242004&postcount=195

Al Quaida said all that? OK, if that's what's being reported, then it must be true.

[Pardalis]

Do you believe Muslim Integrists do not exist? Or do you believe they are incapable of committing terrorist acts?

[notheist]

I believe that the NIST report was limited in its scope. I want to know where the core went.

Are you proposing by the act of questioning that the core somehow disappeared?

Even if you believe in CD the core would be in the rubble. Unless you want to believe in some sort of disintegrating beam from space.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Do you believe Muslim Integrists do not exist? Or do you believe they are incapable of committing terrorist acts?

OK, define "Integrist." I'm dumb.

Of course they're capable of terrorism! The Israelis and Arabs have been duking it out with terrorism for decades.

Do I think their intelligence apparatus could infiltrate our government or get that lucky? No. I don't.

[Gravy]

I don't speak Arabic, so I haven't personally heard the confessions you are referring to. Am I to assume you are fluent in Arabic? And did the translation correctly? (wink) (smiley's aren't working for me yet).Here's one of his famous speeches, with video and transcription. Feel free to run it past an Arabic speaker. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403

I think his calls for Jihad are a scam. Who is he scamming?

I think he is still what he was, since the 70s; a CIA asset/agent. That's a positive claim. Please present your evidence. You can post links now.

And Bush business partner. Evidence? (See how this works?)

But you asked me what I think here! So no, no proof. Evidence? there is plenty written about this.When you make specific claims you will be asked to present your evidence. Plenty that is written is wrong, as CT websites make abundantly clear. You'll need to use reputable sources with verifiable information.

[JimBenArm]

Another fallacy. Are these my only choices?

First of all, it's not discrimination. And it's got nothing to do with faith or race.

As I mentioned before, I have spent years reading incessantly about intelligence agencies and rogue networks.

I wonder if your belief that it was the Arabs might have to do with faith and race! Again, the perfect patsies; we've been conditioned for years to believe that Arabs are crazy, after all.

OK, what is it, then? You dodge and weave around the question, and try to turn it back without answering it.

Why do you not believe it was the hijackers?

[Pardalis]

You can posts links now scg, please show us your facts.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

There is plenty of evidence against such a relationship, and little for.

Wait, is it mere conspiracy theory that the CIA trained and funded the Mujahdeen as insurgents in Afghanistan from '79-'89, or so? They became the Taliban. And to an extent, Al Qaida. Isn't that fact? I've been reading about it since the early 80s!


Nope, that was the bin Laden family: the one that disowned Osama back in '93.

Ah, we were told he was the black sheep, so case closed. Come on.

[The Almond]

I believe that the NIST report was limited in its scope.

I would highly suggest reading the legislation that provided the funding and genesis for the NIST report. It was called the National Construction Safety Team Act (PL 107-231). Congress was quite specific when it directed NIST to study the WTC collapse. Furthermore, the report was not intended entirely as an investigation, but also as a research project whose purpose was to make recommendations for making skyscrapers safer in the future.

I want to know where the core went.

I don't understand this statement. What are you referring to?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they only covered from the hit to the initiation of collapse.

Indeed. NIST was operating on the very valid and scientifically accurate assumption that the towers had no ability to arrest collapse once it began. Any public safety improvements generated through the NIST report would be aimed at preventing the collapse initiation state, not at designing buildings that are capable of stopping collapse once it begins.

I have not read the entire report, but have read both sides' analysis, and several key parts.

Here is where you and I differ. I have read the entirety of the NIST report, and the bulk of it sits in my office. I have also read the various criticisms of the NIST report, and I've found all of them to be intellectually vapid. They are the product of poor research, quote mining and misleading statements.

And no, I do not believe that airplanes, flown by islamic hijackers, attacked and destroyed the Pentagon and WTC 1, 2 and 7.

I apologize for not being clear in my question. I managed to disguise 3 seperate statements into one. For instance, do you believe that no airplanes were flown into the towers (remote or not)?

There, I said it. You can ask me what I think did happen, but that will come out in discussion.

Why not state it here for the record? You're entitled to have your opinion, but I'm going to criticize that opinion if I think it's not based on sound rationality and backed by evidence.

Consider the possibility that the deed was done, partly from within and partly from the outside, and our President was told who to blame. And consider that OBL could have Bin set up as the patsy this way also.

That sounds like an amazingly vague, yet convoluted answer. It appears that you're using the "God of the Gaps" fallacy. The evidence which points to bin Laden was actual evidence, but the evidence which fails to was fabricated by the FBI. If bin Laden has been set up, all of the evidence to convict him would be readily available.

The one thing that doesn't make sense is: why would Bush falsely blame a known CIA agent and his family business partner?! Surely Michael Moore could dig that info up! (Actually, it was already dug up; Moore borrowed the work of others there). So it must have Bin Bin, right?

While it is true that the Bush family has relations with the bin Laden family, you're claiming that Bush had specific dealings with Osama bin Laden himself. That's a demonstrably false statement.

(I know I'm going to get scolded for not providing proof. I wasn't there!)

Indeed you are. You're operating on a rather childish paradigm. In the same post, you've criticized NIST for failing to prove to you how the towers collapsed, and now you ask us to believe your opinions without a shred of proof. How is that logical? Where do you draw the line between what you require evidence to believe and what you believe because it fits with your world view?

[Gravy]

Wait, is it mere conspiracy theory that the CIA trained and funded the Mujahdeen as insurgents in Afghanistan from '79-'89, or so? They became the Taliban. And to an extent, Al Qaida. Isn't that fact? I've been reading about it since the early 80s!

Ah, we were told he was the black sheep, so case closed. Come on.No, "skeptical," that's not how it works. I strongly encourage you to read this post and the sources it links to, for an understanding of bin Laden's role in leading al Qaeda and in the 9/11 attacks. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2058407&postcount=357

[skepticalcriticalguy]

When you make specific claims you will be asked to present your evidence. Plenty that is written is wrong, as CT websites make abundantly clear. You'll need to use reputable sources with verifiable information.

Right, and plenty that was fed us by the government and media (as you allude to when you say "plenty that is written is wrong"). So my original question when I popped in here was; are we here being skeptical about the official story also? Or are we using that theory (even though it has changed several times) as the "truth" which a bunch of hack "conspiracy theorists" are attacking?

Maybe the goal of this board should be to prove the official story, before the CT folks prove otherwise. That would be a more interesting race.

[The Almond]

Maybe the goal of this board should be to prove the official story, before the CT folks prove otherwise. That would be a more interesting race.
That should be simple enough. I submit as proof of the NIST story the NCSTA Report. Please provide a report of equal magnitude whose conclusion opposes NIST's.

[DarkMagician]

Wait, is it mere conspiracy theory that the CIA trained and funded the Mujahdeen as insurgents in Afghanistan from '79-'89, or so? They became the Taliban. And to an extent, Al Qaida. Isn't that fact? I've been reading about it since the early 80s!Nope. Bin Laden was recruiting from Arab volunteers, not the Mujahideen.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Right, and plenty that was fed us by the government and media (as you allude to when you say "plenty that is written is wrong"). So my original question when I popped in here was; are we here being skeptical about the official story also? Or are we using that theory (even though it has changed several times) as the "truth" which a bunch of hack "conspiracy theorists" are attacking?

Maybe the goal of this board should be to prove the official story, before the CT folks prove otherwise. That would be a more interesting race.
The events, as described by the Commission Report, the FEMA report, and the NIST report are the status quo in this debate. That they are not questioned by the majority of professional in relevant fields attests to this. Therefore you, the claimant, have the burden of proof. Your burden is twofold; first, to show that the status quo is wrong and second, to show that your alternative is right.

[stateofgrace]

Right, and plenty that was fed us by the government and media (as you allude to when you say "plenty that is written is wrong"). So my original question when I popped in here was; are we here being skeptical about the official story also? Or are we using that theory (even though it has changed several times) as the "truth" which a bunch of hack "conspiracy theorists" are attacking?

Maybe the goal of this board should be to prove the official story, before the CT folks prove otherwise. That would be a more interesting race.

Maybe you could actually tell us what you believe the "official story" is and what you disagree with.Just a summary, please include in it.

WTC 1
WTC 2
WTC 7
Flight 11
Flight 175
Flight 77
Flight 93
Al Quada.
UBL.

And anything esle you feel that is relevent.

[Pardalis]

Maybe the goal of this board should be to prove the official story, before the CT folks prove otherwise. That would be a more interesting race.

Show me what's wrong in here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

[skepticalcriticalguy]

OK, what is it, then? You dodge and weave around the question, and try to turn it back without answering it.

Why do you not believe it was the hijackers?

Well, shucks; I've been typing the whole time. You are an impatient lot, I see. I'm going to write this, then go for a beer. When I get back and read all your attacks and snide comments, which I'm fairly certain will take up a page or two here, I will have learned a lot about each of you, and what your thinking patterns are like. I doubt I'll have time to respond to everybody's requests for proof. Even though none have you have squat to prove the government's theory.

You asked me why I believe it wasn't the hijackers? Because I have read extensively about the hijackers, from investigative journalists who have tracked their comings and goings and activities. And mainstream reports as well. None of these are necessarily true. But, it's not necessarily true that they were Islamic Fundamentalists, willing to die for the cause, either. Again you asked me why I do not believe, so I'm telling you. There are several journalists out there writing about this stuff, folks. I'd say who, but you'll all tell me they have an agenda.

And here's the main reason I don't think it was the hijackers (at least not alone.) Remember the morning of 9/11, as the reporters and the firemen and the police officers in New York were reporting on all networks "huge explosions," multiple explosions, secondary devices? I remember it well. It's all on the web for us to watch again.

I remember my family watching, and the question that we all had was "how did they get bombs in the buildings, again? I know I'm not the only one who thought that same thing. Many friends remember thinking the same. Then the buildings fell. Then the word "pancake" became part of our vocabulary. Then we had vigils, and Bush gave some speeches, and we started talking about war.

Then we got anthrax.

See y'all!!! I'mma go git me a cold brewski!

[Pardalis]

Show us facts, proof, links we can see for ourselves. I'm sorry, but your word is not enough. You're a skeptic, you should know better.

[Gravy]

Right, and plenty that was fed us by the government and media (as you allude to when you say "plenty that is written is wrong"). So my original question when I popped in here was; are we here being skeptical about the official story also? Or are we using that theory (even though it has changed several times) as the "truth" which a bunch of hack "conspiracy theorists" are attacking?

Maybe the goal of this board should be to prove the official story, before the CT folks prove otherwise. That would be a more interesting race.As The Almond and Pardalis have pointed out, the "official story" is in writing. It's your job, if you disagree with aspects of it, to point out specifically what is wrong and to provide verifiable evidence for your claims. This is the last time I'll be saying this to you. If you continue as you've started, I'll give your posts a pass. The majority of CTs we see here are just JAQing off, and don't have a clue about what the "official story" actually says or how to counter it with evidence. I hope you're smarter than that.

[Arus808]

scg , you ahve been given all the links needed as to why the official reports are valid and supported.

please read them, over and come back with your own analysis, and any specific questions you may have about them.


I dont expect you to be back until say... next week. as the NIST report alone will take up much of your time.

[Pardalis]

Also, some things to learn, from the BBC (unless you don't trust them as well):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3618762.stm

[JimBenArm]

You asked me why I believe it wasn't the hijackers? Because I have read extensively about the hijackers, from investigative journalists who have tracked their comings and goings and activities. And mainstream reports as well. None of these are necessarily true. But, it's not necessarily true that they were Islamic Fundamentalists, willing to die for the cause, either. Again you asked me why I do not believe, so I'm telling you. There are several journalists out there writing about this stuff, folks. I'd say who, but you'll all tell me they have an agenda.

Well, just give it a try. Or are you not very certain yourself about their agenda?


And here's the main reason I don't think it was the hijackers (at least not alone.) Remember the morning of 9/11, as the reporters and the firemen and the police officers in New York were reporting on all networks "huge explosions," multiple explosions, secondary devices? I remember it well. It's all on the web for us to watch again.

I remember my family watching, and the question that we all had was "how did they get bombs in the buildings, again? I know I'm not the only one who thought that same thing. Many friends remember thinking the same. Then the buildings fell. Then the word "pancake" became part of our vocabulary. Then we had vigils, and Bush gave some speeches, and we started talking about war.


So, explosions = bombs. Got it.

This has been covered multiple times on this site. Go do a search on it.

When you get done, and figure out what is wrong with the above equation, we'll continue. But not until then.

Bye!

[notheist]

And here's the main reason I don't think it was the hijackers (at least not alone.) Remember the morning of 9/11, as the reporters and the firemen and the police officers in New York were reporting on all networks "huge explosions," multiple explosions, secondary devices? I remember it well. It's all on the web for us to watch again.


So in your world a massive building that was just hit by an airplane going 400mph and burning with huge fires does NOT make noise????

Super heated steel will expand and and in doing so welds, rivets and bolts will snap with explosive sounds. Things inside the plane will also explode such as oxygen generators.

All these far more logical the any wild idea that explosives were brought into the buildings.

[WildCat]

Do I think their intelligence apparatus could infiltrate our government or get that lucky? No. I don't.
What part of the 9/11 plot required an infiltration of our gov't?

Still waiting for a fact from you, speculative questions just don't cut it here.

[Gravy]

Why is that? Isn't it the job of the media to watchdog the government? What I said was if inside job turned out to be true, wouldn't they have been remiss, even criminal, in not even investigating the possibility all this time?I repeat: you are speaking nonsense. Don't make me sic Arkan Wolfshade and his compendium of logical fallacies on you.

[Pardalis]

Oh, and one other thing scg, when you get back, could you start your own thread? This thread is for lewd jokes and play-on-words about Hustler and CTists. :D

[WildCat]

Wait, is it mere conspiracy theory that the CIA trained and funded the Mujahdeen as insurgents in Afghanistan from '79-'89, or so? They became the Taliban. And to an extent, Al Qaida. Isn't that fact?
No, it is not a fact.

I've been reading about it since the early 80s!
Excellent, so it should be no problem for you to link to an article from a reliable source showing how the insurgents funded and trained by the CIA became the Taliban. As opposed to the insurgents not trained and funded by the CIA. You do know that there were many different flavors of mujahedeen fighting the Soviets, don't you? And that the CIA did not support all of them? Now you have a clear task, and such a simple thing to prove since you've been reading about this since the 1980's!

Ah, we were told he was the black sheep, so case closed. Come on.
Told by whom? I want to see exactly how many people/groups are in on this vast conspiracy of yours.

[Gravy]

And here's the main reason I don't think it was the hijackers (at least not alone.) Remember the morning of 9/11, as the reporters and the firemen and the police officers in New York were reporting on all networks "huge explosions," multiple explosions, secondary devices? I remember it well. It's all on the web for us to watch again.It's true that many people described hearing "explosions." at the WTC on that day. Most of those accounts are about the sound of the towers as they were collapsing, and some are about cars, trucks, etc. that were on fire after the collapses.

However, other accounts describe events before the collapses. For example:


Monchery, Alwish (E.M.T. E.M.S.): "Sound of popping and exploding."

Murphy, Keith (FDNY): "Sounded like bombs."

Burns, William (Lt. PAPD): "Explosions."

Terranova, Rosario (Lieutenant E.M.S.): "Kept hearing these large boom, boom."

Fitzgerald, Anthony (Lt. PAPD): "Sounded like explosions."

Rodriguez, Andrew (PAPD): "Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs."

Meier, Mark (P.O. PAPD): "Like a shotgun going off."

Barriere, Wilfred (Det. PAPD): "Sounded like explosions."

Smiouskas, Richard (Lieutenant FDNY): "Like explosions."

Murray, John (Fire Marshall FDNY): "Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters."


All of the descriptions above are of bodies from the towers hitting the ground or other structures.


So, yes, many people did describe explosions, and conspiracy theorists always take these descriptions out of context. These posts of mine should help you to understand the context of these descriptions:

What they actually described hearing in and around the towers (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1997183&postcount=1)

Descriptions of the north tower elevator shaft, lobby, and basement jet fuel explosion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1907291#post1907291)

I hope this will help you to understand that there are rational explanations for what you feel is that strongest evidence against suicide hijacker involvement.

[beachnut]

Whilst we joke, many more are being exposed to the conspiracy theories. Wow, what if they end up being right?

There is much better chance you are pdoh than a CT containing a fact.

[Quad4_72]

Wait, is it mere conspiracy theory that the CIA trained and funded the Mujahdeen as insurgents in Afghanistan from '79-'89, or so? They became the Taliban. And to an extent, Al Qaida. Isn't that fact? I've been reading about it since the early 80s!


I don't think that you could be any more wrong here. Are you implying that the Taliban and Al Qaida are the same thing?

[firecoins]

Whaaa? Larry Flint's Hustler? I hope their not shown naked :covereyes
Yes its true. These men have no dic ks. (Ghostbusters)

[beachnut]

And no, I do not believe that airplanes, flown by islamic hijackers, attacked and destroyed the Pentagon and WTC 1, 2 and 7. There, I said it. You can ask me what I think did happen, but that will come out in discussion. And as I mentioned, I don't claim to know beyond a doubt. But here's a hint; I have, for years, read incessantly about Intel agencies and rogue networks in our government.


Wrong out of the box! good job.

How could you? You just talk like Alex Jones; dish out some more BS and never stop running to the next lie.

If you only had some facts!

Welcome; bring facts next time.

[Oliver]

*snip* Then we got anthrax.


Concerning Anthrax: Was it a real False Flag Op? I remember that the
evidence pointed to us military sources but none to terroristic organisations.

[beachnut]

Maybe the goal of this board should be to prove the official story, before the CT folks prove otherwise. That would be a more interesting race.

So you have zero facts and evidence to support your ideas. You are stuck in the starter box.

The 9/11 truth movement lost the race 5 years ago; you missed it! Wrong for 5 years!

Maybe you should read some of the massive information based on facts and real logic. Seems like you are living in a CT world and have ignored facts, math, and physics. I say this before you break into a victory dance after you get frustrated from lacking facts and leave.

When did you notice you were missing facts on 9/11? How long have you been suffering from this kind of Alex Jones type of rant?

[WildCat]

See y'all!!! I'mma go git me a cold brewski!
I wish I could be around when the beer-muscled scg comes back, but I have to go to bed and my g/f needs to use the computer. I'll check back in the morning to read the hilarity that's sure to follow!

[beachnut]

Well, shucks; I've been typing the whole time. You are an impatient lot, I see. I'm going to write this, then go for a beer. When I get back and read all your attacks and snide comments, !

I am going to have a case of beer since you came without a single fact to support standard CT junk. As stated, 5 years wrong before you even figured out you wanted to be like Charlie Sheen and share you opinions on 9/11 truth and keep your facts a big secret.

Secret is you have no facts. Or will you ever share a real fact with us to support your CT ideas.

You rehash the stuff you read and did not even research it. UBLs past!

You say the 19 terrorist did not do 9/11 and offer no evidence.

What will your CT super ideas be? The terrorist were not good pilots?

We supported UBL and now he does not like us?

What evidence will you ignore to present total idiot ideas on 9/11?

What will you ignore to present junk on 9/11 that has nothing to do with 9/11.

What quote like "pull it" or "sounded like", or "smelled like", or "looked like" will you show proves a CT by some group of runaway idiots in the government made up of people like yourself?

Are you going to ignore all the real facts because you think it is a CT and present zero facts?

What great junk have you brought with you. So far zero facts; just talk. You now promise us your alcohol induced intelligence to show us what? No facts just talk?

What have you got that the world has missed? What great facts do you have before you earn the Pulitzer Prize?

[beachnut]

So in your world a massive building that was just hit by an airplane going 400mph and burning with huge fires does NOT make noise????

Super heated steel will expand and and in doing so welds, rivets and bolts will snap with explosive sounds. Things inside the plane will also explode such as oxygen generators.

All these far more logical the any wild idea that explosives were brought into the buildings.

Do not cheat and use logic it will mess up the CT guy!

welcome - use all the logic you can, i need training

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I wish I could be around when the beer-muscled scg comes back, but I have to go to bed and my g/f needs to use the computer. I'll check back in the morning to read the hilarity that's sure to follow!

Well, I'm back. Only had 2 beers.

Ya know, this is exactly what I expected here. A bunch of smug know-it-alls. Just like "the other side." You've already "booted" me.

Let's see, there are thousands of you here, and some guy comes on, and literally gets ambushed. Several of you asked me my thoughts. Then chewed my ass for not having proof. As I mentioned, it took the whole couple hours to answer the thoughts questions.

So smug here. The time you guys spend here in one week, you could knock out some good eye-opening books that have been written over the years.

I know, I know: "Define books!" "Define years!" "Prove they were actually written!" "Prove you read them!"

So, knock yourselves out with the "hilarity that's sure to follow" my retreat. (Just so you know, I don't consider it a victory or defeat). Your world is a mess. I mean the big blue globe thingie. While you all worry about whether it was a thud or a bomb, a 45 degree angle or a 47 degree angle, some of us are waking up and have a good idea of what's going on in the governments of the world. Or at least have a glimpse of it.

The world isn't black and white. Science is, but discourse is not. And there are so many grey areas that science will never account for. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

I hope you all find some of those greay areas in your search for the truth. (If you still seek it).

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Do not cheat and use logic it will mess up the CT guy!

welcome - use all the logic you can, i need training

Smug attack. I was warned I'd be "Hannatized" here.

You're all CTers. You just believe the official CT. Both sides have presented some good evidence. But, like the other side, you all cherry pick the evidence.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I am going to have a case of beer since you came without a single fact to support standard CT junk. As stated, 5 years wrong before you even figured out you wanted to be like Charlie Sheen and share you opinions on 9/11 truth and keep your facts a big secret.

Secret is you have no facts. Or will you ever share a real fact with us to support your CT ideas.

You rehash the stuff you read and did not even research it. UBLs past!

You say the 19 terrorist did not do 9/11 and offer no evidence.

What will your CT super ideas be? The terrorist were not good pilots?

We supported UBL and now he does not like us?

What evidence will you ignore to present total idiot ideas on 9/11?

What will you ignore to present junk on 9/11 that has nothing to do with 9/11.

What quote like "pull it" or "sounded like", or "smelled like", or "looked like" will you show proves a CT by some group of runaway idiots in the government made up of people like yourself?

Are you going to ignore all the real facts because you think it is a CT and present zero facts?

What great junk have you brought with you. So far zero facts; just talk. You now promise us your alcohol induced intelligence to show us what? No facts just talk?

What have you got that the world has missed? What great facts do you have before you earn the Pulitzer Prize?

Sorry, I thought this was a discussion board. My bad for posting before I learned your mores.

You sound like a very angry person. Maybe you should have that case of beer.

[David Wong]

You've ignored the posts that contained data, read only the ones that contained humorous insults, then complained that you got nothing but insults.

Typtical. You have to make yourself blind to actual information to believe what you believe.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

How long have you been suffering from this kind of Alex Jones type of rant?

First off, that makes no sense. Suffering from a rant?

Your rants sound more Jones-ian than mine.

What is this Alex Jones obsession here? I have reason to question his motives, just like you all have. But hell, you want to label me, paint me in a box, and send me away from your special group? I guess I'll go watch Terrorstorm or something. Jeesh.

[LashL]

If SCG is the best that the 911blogger site has to offer after plotting a "full on assault of information", I almost feel sorry for them.

Almost.

[beachnut]

Sorry, I thought this was a discussion board. My bad for posting before I learned your mores.

You sound like a very angry person. Maybe you should have that case of beer.

I have decided on 2 cases after the hot tub. Go have your beer.

From your first post you ignored questions and discussion; you were lecturing; I know, my 4th graders were lecturing me today.

Nice try pot

kettle

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You've ignored the posts that contained data, read only the ones that contained humorous insults, then complained that you got nothing but insults.

Typtical. You have to make yourself blind to actual information to believe what you believe.

Oh, ok, now I get it. Those were humorous insults!!! You guys should get out to a comedy club or two. Humor shouldn't be quite that sharp. Kinda makes the butt of the joke feel like he's being kicked in the teeth. Work on your delivery, people!

I'm trying to read the links to what you call facts. But I can't with all the humorous insults cracking me up the whole time!! (slaps knee) Quit it! Yer killin' me!

[skepticalcriticalguy]

If SKG is the best that the 911blogger site has to offer after plotting a "full on assault of information", I almost feel sorry for them.

Almost.

I have no idea what you'r talking about, friend. Seriously.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I have decided on 2 cases after the hot tub. Go have your beer.

From your first post you ignored questions and discussion; you were lecturing; I know, my 4th graders were lecturing me today.

Nice try pot

kettle

As I think I mentioned; I spent a couple hours aswering "what do you think" and "what do you believe" type questions. Hell, when would I have time to look up links to facts?

Besides, you all know the deficiencies in both sides of this (apparent) war.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Concerning Anthrax: Was it a real False Flag Op? I remember that the
evidence pointed to us military sources but none to terroristic organisations.

Good question. One that was never really thoroughly answered, that I know of.

I haven't heard anything on this (anthrax) story since 2004, maybe early 2005. Not even at false-flag-vast-conspiracy sites.

I'd like to know more about it if there has been new news or solid proof as to

[Oliver]

Good question. One that was never really thoroughly answered, that I know of.

I haven't heard anything on this (anthrax) story since 2004, maybe early 2005. Not even at false-flag-vast-conspiracy sites.

I'd like to know more about it if there has been new news or solid proof as to

I wonder why conspiracy theorist don´t dig into
this story since it´s provable and as much explosive
as a rigged WTC7. Weren´t there investigations from
the FBI? I´m also interested to know what happend
retrospectively. I will take a look into Paul Thompsons
timeline - i´m sure he has something about it...

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Are you proposing by the act of questioning that the core somehow disappeared?

Even if you believe in CD the core would be in the rubble. Unless you want to believe in some sort of disintegrating beam from space.

OK, here's a chance to educate me without taking rude and obnoxious pot-shots.

I don't want to discuss "particle-beam-from-space" theory. Although I believe I read that Tesla said we could break things apart using vibrations, but I'd have to refresh.

So, past that; wouldn't pancaking floors leave the core beams standing? Has that been scientifically analyzed? If the NIST only hypothesized up to the collapse initiation, then they don't cover the science of the collapsed core. So doesn't the collapsed core raise some skepticism?

I'm just asking.

And as for whether it disappeared or not: of course it did! It was sold as scrap. It is no longer here to analyze. But I do think I saw some video of nice neat angle cuts. Must have been in a documentary I watched. I've seen pictures too. So have all of you. So tell me, nicely, if you have it in ya, what caused the angle cuts? Need the pictures?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I wonder why conspiracy theorist don´t dig into
this story since it´s provable and as much explosive
as a rigged WTC7. Weren´t there investigations from
the FBI? I´m also interested to know what happend
retrospectively. I will take a look into Paul Thompsons
timeline - i´m sure he has something about it...

You say it's provable. I guess so (are we allowed to say "guess so" at this board?) But seems like (are we allowed to say "seems like?") that would be very tough to investigate. There is no video, or audio, or anthrax flight recorders.

What do you think, Oliver? I know much was written and speculated, but what can be done?

[Gravy]

You are now rambling with woo. Take it one issue at a time. Please go back and click the links that we've posted in response to your statements.

Take your time and read the information therein.

Come back when you have prepared specific, detailed, considered responses, backed with verifiable evidence. Again, take your time.

Happy birthday.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I have decided on 2 cases after the hot tub.

2 cases of beer and a hot tub. All you need now is a copy of the new Hustler!!

(Come on, even the new dumb guy who reads too much crazy stuff is allowed some humorous insults, right?)

[Gravy]

So tell me, nicely, if you have it in ya, what caused the angle cuts? Need the pictures?Man, I've never seen someone so all over the place. What caused those cuts? Ironworkers with oxyacetylene torches, of course. Need the pictures?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You are now rambling with woo. Take it one issue at a time. Please go back and click the links that we've posted in response to your statements.

Take your time and read the information therein.

Come back when you have prepared specific, detailed, considered responses, backed with verifiable evidence. Again, take your time.

Happy birthday.

Gravy! What is "woo?"

I will take things one issue at a time as soon as I've replied to all the humorous insults, and the "what do you think" and "what do you believe" stuff I was bombarded with.

You guys would do your group justice by allowing somebody to process, before kicking and biting and piling on.

And yes, I am checking out the links. As soon as I can. So everybody chill. Make some Hustler jokes. They were good. (Well, some of them).

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Man, I've never seen someone so all over the place. What caused those cuts? Ironworkers with oxyacetylene torches, of course. Need the pictures?

OK, thanks. And yes, I want the pictures.

I'm all over the place because the question-attack-bombs lobbed at me were all over the place! Don't blame me.

[Redtail]

And here's the main reason I don't think it was the hijackers (at least not alone.) Remember the morning of 9/11, as the reporters and the firemen and the police officers in New York were reporting on all networks "huge explosions," multiple explosions, secondary devices? I remember it well. It's all on the web for us to watch again.


Oh goodie a "common senser" I get to play with!

"Huge explosions, multiple explosions" Well let's see, two very large planes, with most of their fuel crash into a very large building setting it on fire and causing massive structural damage... Yep there were explosions... that's a shocker. "Secondary devices". How many explosive experts, firemen, or first responders can you go to today and they will say it's was a bomb? (Hint: those folks were going through hell that day, none of them knew what was going on so they were extra careful.)



I remember my family watching, and the question that we all had was "how did they get bombs in the buildings, again? I know I'm not the only one who thought that same thing. Many friends remember thinking the same. Then the buildings fell. Then the word "pancake" became part of our vocabulary. Then we had vigils, and Bush gave some speeches, and we started talking about war.

What "bombs"? You do know explosions can occur without bombs right? And you say you never used the word pancake before 9/11/2001? Wow you should try McGriddles. They're good.

Then we got anthrax.

See y'all!!! I'mma go git me a cold brewski!

Antrax makes you drink beer!?!?! Good lord! My lungs must be destroyed! (Albeit it explains why my liver was sittin next to me crying Sunday before last. Dang Panthers will drive one to drink!)

[Oliver]

You say it's provable. I guess so (are we allowed to say "guess so" at this board?) But seems like (are we allowed to say "seems like?") that would be very tough to investigate. There is no video, or audio, or anthrax flight recorders.

What do you think, Oliver? I know much was written and speculated, but what can be done?

Well, i also guess it´s tough to investigate but since
the Anthrax issue is no pure speculation like the controlled
demolition theories, there seems to be a much higher
chance to connect the dots - especially because the
used anthrax is physical evidence and it´s structure
tells about it´s origin.

If i remember it the right way, it was a biologist who
claimed that the type of Anthrax was similar or identical
to a us-military type of Anthrax. I have to look into the
story because i can´t remember the names involved.

This is what the 9/11 timeline says about Anthrax:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=anthrax&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

ETA: If you like to, you can start a new thread about
it because it´s pretty off topic to this thread. :">

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Oh goodie a "common senser" I get to play with!
How many explosive experts, firemen, or first responders can you go to today and they will say it's was a bomb?

Well, I don't live in NYC, but the evil Truthers say they had many talk to them at the anniversary last year. But that's no proof. I doubt (are we allowed to say "I doubt?") many of them are too keen to talk about things.



What "bombs"? You do know explosions can occur without bombs right? And you say you never used the word pancake before 9/11/2001? Wow you should try McGriddles. They're good.
Nope, didn't say that. Nut I do like pancakes. Mmmmmm.



Antrax makes you drink beer!?!?! Good lord! My lungs must be destroyed! (Albeit it explains why my liver was sittin next to me crying Sunday before last. Dang Panthers will drive one to drink!)

Panthers fan? That explains everything!

[beachnut]

Asking who is woo when the woo is you?

This is the attack? He sounded like Charlie Sheen. I posted in tone and in kind to his disguised veil of intelligent discussion.

I wonder when he moves on to beam weapons, thermite and mini nukes.

Will anyone be surprised if he posts from prisonplanet?

Oops did he mention cut beams. THERMITE??? woooooo

[skepticalcriticalguy]

If SCG is the best that the 911blogger site has to offer after plotting a "full on assault of information", I almost feel sorry for them.

Almost.

Hey, this one is bugging the hell out of my beer-addled mind.

Is there some declared street war going on here that I just stepped into? I hope I didn't just blow the whole 911blogger strategy! Jeesh.

(I've been to that site maybe 10 times, total, and it's only when I click a link at a message board. I swear, I'm not a regular).

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Asking who is woo when the woo is you?

This is the attack? He sounded like Charlie Sheen. I posted in tone and in kind to his disguised veil of intelligent discussion.

I wonder when he moves on to beam weapons, thermite and mini nukes.

Will anyone be surprised if he posts from prisonplanet?

Oops did he mention cut beams. THERMITE??? woooooo

You're absolutely unreal. I asked a couple questions! See, you smug folks are not in the least bit interested in educating or discussing. It's all paranoia and insult. Just like the other side! (Actually, you are worse).

SERIOUSLY, drop the paranoia. I'm not some agent in your war with 911blogger (as I just posted). If that's what this is all about, I'll accept your apologies, if anybody cares to make one. Or are you always this way?

I haven't even read Reynolds and Woods theory. But I will soon. Have any of you really read it?

[beachnut]

I bet Hustler woos forgot to check out the fact fires at the WTC complex did make steel weak and floors failed as in WTC5

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/124474550e45019258.jpg

Should I load the famous Dr Jones thermite cut that proves him a woo too. ???

This is for the beer guy so we are ahead of fire does not make steel fail!!!

When he gets to it.

[A W Smith]

Whilst we joke, many more are being exposed to the conspiracy theories. Wow, what if they end up being right?


That wont happen. They are proved to be wrong. Many times. Daily, For five years now. Here we go again start the music.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

This is for the beer guy so we are ahead of fire does not make steel fail!!!

When he gets to it.

Again, so smug. How much of your 2 cases have you had?

Please, people; what is a "woo!" I gots to know! I'm not privvy (privyy? priivy? None of those look right) to your insider smart-person jargon and lingo. I'm trying to learn! Throw me a bone here! I won't leave until somebody tells me what a "woo" is! Then I'll be gone. <poof>

[skepticalcriticalguy]

That wont happen. They are proved to be wrong. Many times. Daily, For five years now. Here we go again start the music.

This is what gets me, and a valid question. If you are right, then why even acknowledge the CTers (I mean the alternate CTers)? Why even bother with this topic? Let them all implode and collapse. Let them JAQ off (whatever that means, more insider jargon; anybody? little help?) and make asses of themselves, like I guess I am because I've read 50-60 books on intel and rogue networks, and then fade away into Hustler-land?

You guys feed their fire. You don't really think they're gonna tear down the government, do you? Let them have their hobby! Like you have yours!

[beachnut]

woo is like goo or poo

who knows woo? but I am acting like a woo, who else could do as well.

Who knows?

But if I was CT inclined I would review Gravy's post and go from there. Read all of them and see what you think.

Just a hint. Ignore me for a while; and review Gravy's post;

This will be the best advise you will get with your present tone.

Please read Gravy's post and try again.

Good luck and welcome

Plus read up on all this junk here for a few days before stepping off the cliff!

Good luck... (do read Gravy's posts, it will be ok)

[beachnut]

Most of these guys try to present facts on why the CT world is telling lies.

Simple.

Why do CT guys make up stuff? Thermite, beam weapons, and more.

They do it because some people fall for the CT world by accident. These guys are trying to help with facts.

You are not asking questions or anything. You post lie after lie. Lies because they are not based on facts. You use hearsay and talk to push lies.

I have problems with CT world of lies. I see it is mainly a problem of education for most. Young CTers think the "expert" CT guys have something. Young CTers believe Alex Jones has something. Same old junk CT stuff is coming from you.

I have yet to see a CT guy who has original work. Have you? Facts would be unheard of.

[uk_dave]

Your world is a mess. I mean the big blue globe thingie. While you all worry about whether it was a thud or a bomb, a 45 degree angle or a 47 degree angle, some of us are waking up and have a good idea of what's going on in the governments of the world. Or at least have a glimpse of it.

The world isn't black and white. Science is, but discourse is not. And there are so many grey areas that science will never account for. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

I hope you all find some of those greay areas in your search for the truth. (If you still seek it).

You know, I kinda sorta agree with you here, but perhaps not entirely in the way that you intended.

I noticed recently on the LC forum that somene posted regarding the calamity we may be facing with regard to global climate change. Of course they posted a woowoo version full of claims that 4.5 Billion people would die as a result and that this was all part of the NWO evil plan to reduce world population. Even the 'chemtrails' issue has been touched on over there from a woowoo who believes that the trails might be intentional global dimming (which is kinda ironic since the global dimming theory has it that particulate polution in the atmosphere is actually reducing the effects of GH gas emissions and by cleaning up polution such as contrails (chemtrails) from aircraft the negative effects of GH gasses will become amplified) and that this is all just a NWO plot.

But the thing which struck me was that this was an area of outrage the woowoo's could actually do some good with, and that if they were to devote more time to supporting the demands for action to reduce carbon emissions then they would be acheiving somethig positive rather than just JAQing off over 9/11.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Most of these guys try to present facts on why the CT world is telling lies.

Simple.

Why do CT guys make up stuff? Thermite, beam weapons, and more.

They do it because some people fall for the CT world by accident. These guys are trying to help with facts.

You are not asking questions or anything. You post lie after lie. Lies because they are not based on facts. You use hearsay and talk to push lies.

I have problems with CT world of lies. I see it is mainly a problem of education for most. Young CTers think the "expert" CT guys have something. Young CTers believe Alex Jones has something. Same old junk CT stuff is coming from you.

I have yet to see a CT guy who has original work. Have you? Facts would be unheard of.

I assume this was for me? Grrrrrrr!!! You say "don't post, go read Gravy" (which I have attempted and will read, seriously, when I can stop defending myself). Then you post again! And incite a response! You go read all my posts. Don't get angry and reply, just read. It's a discipline we probably could both dial in better. Don't you think?

I thought I came in here with no tone. Maybe my skepticism about this group's skepticism came through. BTW, I'm still skeptical about your skepticism here, in general. Here's why.

I would have (still might) reply to the post where it was brought up. Maybe I'll spare you all. But I was told (lectured?) that the NIST, FEMA, and Warren Commission reports are the status quo. What did all of you use as your basis for argument before those reports came out?

Also, I have read many debunks of all three of those reports. And debunks of the debunks, and on and on. I am aware of the (alleged) inconsistencies and flaws in them, as are all of you. You have to admit, they aren't perfect. Right? If you tell me they are perfect, I'm out of here, without even finding out what "woo" means.

And as for "original work"; where is yours? Just links to government sites and alternative blogger/journalists and CNN/FOX/network stuff! Just like Alex Jones. And the other side. Or do you have something? Your own investigation?

Even Huffschmid and Grossman and Meyssan and Thorne and Jones and Holmgren have done work. I haven't. Have you?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You know, I kinda sorta agree with you here, but perhaps not entirely in the way that you intended.

I noticed recently on the LC forum that somene posted regarding the calamity we may be facing with regard to global climate change. Of course they posted a woowoo version full of claims that 4.5 Billion people would die as a result and that this was all part of the NWO evil plan to reduce world population. Even the 'chemtrails' issue has been touched on over there from a woowoo who believes that the trails might be intentional global dimming (which is kinda ironic since the global dimming theory has it that particulate polution in the atmosphere is actually reducing the effects of GH gas emissions and by cleaning up polution such as contrails (chemtrails) from aircraft the negative effects of GH gasses will become amplified) and that this is all just a NWO plot.

But the thing which struck me was that this was an area of outrage the woowoo's could actually do some good with, and that if they were to devote more time to supporting the demands for action to reduce carbon emissions then they would be acheiving somethig positive rather than just JAQing off over 9/11.

OK, wait; I wasn't referring to environmental stuff. They talk about that crap at the LC blog? Yikes.

No, when I said "the world's a mess" or whatever (are we allowed to say "whatever?") I meant the corrupt, criminal rogue governments of the world.

What's woo-woo and JAQ? Please?

[uk_dave]

OK, wait; I wasn't referring to environmental stuff. They talk about that crap at the LC blog? Yikes.

No, when I said "the world's a mess" or whatever (are we allowed to say "whatever?") I meant the corrupt, criminal rogue governments of the world.


Yes I know that.

But the point is that there is plenty going on in the world that the armchair revolutionaries can get their teeth into, but 9/11 CT is a waste of time because it has no good theories, even less good evidence and no one really cares anymore outside of a few online forum and a handful of CTers who are making a buck off the gullible.

If people want to change the world they are living in they should be looking for other issues, but of course those other issues aren't nearly as exciting as endless discussions about 9/11 and other issues may actually require some of these CTers to get off their arses and actually do something.

Perish the thought.

[uk_dave]

woowoo is used to describe people who go "woooo!" when they see something their limited imaginations cannot comprehend.

JAQ = Just Asking Questions

[Gravy]

Gravy! What is "woo?"Short for woo-woo, meaning paranormal, or faith-based rather than evidence-based.

You guys would do your group justice by allowing somebody to process, before kicking and biting and piling on.You've been given the advice to discuss one issue at a time. It's good advice.

OK, thanks. And yes, I want the pictures.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045a489fc652e3.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045a489fccf998.jpg


I'm all over the place because the question-attack-bombs lobbed at me were all over the place! Don't blame me.IMO you're all over the place because that's how the CT mind works. You don't have evidence to back your claims, so you need to change subjects...FAST!

[LashL]

OK, wait; I wasn't referring to environmental stuff. They talk about that crap at the LC blog? Yikes.

No, when I said "the world's a mess" or whatever (are we allowed to say "whatever?") I meant the corrupt, criminal rogue governments of the world.

What's woo-woo and JAQ? Please?

:socks: :socks: :socks: :socks: :socks: :socks: :socks: :socks: :socks: :socks: :socks: :socks:

[beachnut]

I assume this was for me? Grrrrrrr!!! You say "don't post, go read Gravy" (which I have attempted and will read, seriously, when I can stop defending myself). Then you post again! And incite a response! You go read all my posts. Don't get angry and reply, just read. It's a discipline we probably could both dial in better. Don't you think?

I thought I came in here with no tone. Maybe my skepticism about this group's skepticism came through. BTW, I'm still skeptical about your skepticism here, in general. Here's why.

I would have (still might) reply to the post where it was brought up. Maybe I'll spare you all. But I was told (lectured?) that the NIST, FEMA, and Warren Commission reports are the status quo. What did all of you use as your basis for argument before those reports came out?

Also, I have read many debunks of all three of those reports. And debunks of the debunks, and on and on. I am aware of the (alleged) inconsistencies and flaws in them, as are all of you. You have to admit, they aren't perfect. Right? If you tell me they are perfect, I'm out of here, without even finding out what "woo" means.

And as for "original work"; where is yours? Just links to government sites and alternative blogger/journalists adn CNN/FOX/CBS/NBC/ABC stuff! Just like Alex Jones. And the other side.

Hijackers took 4 aircraft; 3 made their targets; the fourth plane as taken back by Americans working together with facts based on 9/11; they did in minutes and acted; you have take 5 years to mess up and make up CT of 9/11.

Planes impacted the WTC towers, fire weakened steel, building fell releasing the energy in each tower due to gravity of 248 TONS of TNT each. This cause the damage seen at the WTC complex.

The Pentagon was stuck by flight 77! The Pentagon burned.

93 heroes plane crashed and buried itself in the ground like so many of my fellow pilots in the Air Force deep in the ground at high speed.

Plane impacts were like 1300 to 2400 pound of TNT for each impact. That is why it looked like the planes were destroyed! That is why the tons of plane entered the WTC and Pentagon and the ground.

There is no CT by our government. You have no facts.

I do not need the NIST, FEMA, or another report. I was paying attention to world events and knew UBL did it when I saw the planes on 9/11; the government figured it out too. Darn, I could have had a Pulitzer Prize if everyone including Dan Rather had not know UBL was trying to kill us for the last 26 years.

It helps that I am BSEE, MSEE, a Air Force Pilot on duty on 9/11. I know that NORAD did not stand down. I know how easy it is to fly a 757/767, I am a FAA rated Airline Transport Pilot. I have help, by brother is an engineer like me, he is an ME. We agree on the WTC and other damage that day; we become our own peer review.

I know countless pilots who agree the terrorist were over qualified to fly the planes as seen on 9/11; it was rookie work.

I can calculate the energy in fuel that set the fires in the WTC, I can calculate the energy in the WTC due to gravity. I can calculate to the pound, the energy of each impact and you can see why it looked like a 2000 pound bomb instead of an aircraft impact!

I know the dumb things about radar, transponders and other junk the CT world lies about.

I know cell phones can work in flight. I cheated I used them in flight before 9/11. I also can read, it helps to read before selling your soul to liars who do not care about anything but themselves and money like the LC gang.

Go back to school, so far you have mentioned the thermite junk without saying the thermite word.

You debunk yourself when you start with diagonal cut beams.

I have found no useful information for CT ideas on 9/11. You have made an error believing lies.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Yes I know that.

But the point is that there is plenty going on in the world that the armchair revolutionaries can get their teeth into, but 9/11 CT is a waste of time because it has no good theories, even less good evidence and no one really cares anymore outside of a few online forum and a handful of CTers who are making a buck off the gullible.

If people want to change the world they are living in they should be looking for other issues, but of course those other issues aren't nearly as exciting as endless discussions about 9/11 and other issues may actually require some of these CTers to get off their arses and actually do something.

Perish the thought.

OK, nice, gotcha on that. (I mean, gotcha, not I gotcha). That's a good thought, but I doubt this debate is going away any time soon. While the world burns.

Again, just let them (us, I still think there's more to the story than meets the eye on 9/11) implode and collapse. If there's nothing to see, then move along, and let us waste our time and lives on nothing.

Does that make sense?

[A W Smith]

my wifes calling me to bed so I will address what I recall as the one of the first questions you asked
why bin laden?

Well I admit he denied it at first until he could get his butt out of Afghanistan to safety. Then he admitted in on tape. many times if i recall. he also has a proven track record for crimes that DO appear under his most wanted FBI poster. Now if YOU were bin laden. And you did not do it. But nonetheless would relish in Bush the great Satan being exposed as the evil he is. Wouldn't you deny it and point your finger at Bush and his regime doing an inside job? Would that not serve the jihad better? or are they just interested in sending each of themselves one at a time to ...well where ever it is they go.. to the land of fifty six virgin ugly Betty's or whatever.

As far as us not taken Prison Planet seriously. well the same could be said for them old supermarket tabloids like Midnight or the Enquirer. You will not see articles in those tabloids in the mainstream media. Not because of a media conspiracy. Just because the stuff in those tabloids is fabrication for a niche market. Prison Planet writes for its small niche market. Those who feel paranoid or feel that life has treated them unfairly and they feel powerless. It appeals to those who clink beer mugs together and lament that the "Man" is keeping them down. It gives readers the illusion of intelligence because only they can figure out the complex weavings of a vast conspiracy only seen by them.

well Ive been cut short ill continue tomorrow Ive been given my warning.

[Oliver]

OK, nice, gotcha on that. (I mean, gotcha, not I gotcha). That's a good thought, but I doubt this debate is going away any time soon. While the world burns.

Again, just let them (us, I still think there's more to the story than meets the eye on 9/11) implode and collapse. If there's nothing to see, then move along, and let us waste our time and lives on nothing.

Does that make sense?

The Anthrax-Thread is here:

Anthrax False Flag Conspiracy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72195)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72195

BTW: Happy Birthday and welcome on Board, SCG. :)

[TjW]

You're absolutely unreal. I asked a couple questions! See, you smug folks are not in the least bit interested in educating or discussing. It's all paranoia and insult. Just like the other side! (Actually, you are worse).

SERIOUSLY, drop the paranoia. I'm not some agent in your war with 911blogger (as I just posted). If that's what this is all about, I'll accept your apologies, if anybody cares to make one. Or are you always this way?

I haven't even read Reynolds and Woods theory. But I will soon. Have any of you really read it?

If you think that the posters here are dismissive, and smug that they know the answers you're going to "just ask" before you "just ask" them, you're right.

There's a reason for that.
It can be summed up pretty well by modifying a scene from "Young Frankenstein":

First Elder: Oh tosh. This man is different, I tell you. You can see that after he talks with you for five minutes. Yes.

Villager: He's a Troofer, and they're all the same. It's in their blood, they can't help it. All those dimbulbs, they're all alike. They say they want the truth, but what they really want to do is stroke their egos.

Second Elder: That's enough now. I will not have this meeting become a free-for-all. These are very serious charges you're making. All the more painful to us, your elders, because we still have nightmares from five times before.

You are not the first person, or the second person, or even the fifth to come to this forum "just asking questions". It's a well-trod path. Surely you must know that, since you were "warned". Most of us (I certainly can't speak for everyone, but I will anyway) don't find insinuations phrased as questions interesting, because we've seen them before, we did the research, and we think they're bogus. They're bogus as insinuations, they're bogus as questions. We've looked at the questions, compared answers, and voted for reality. We did the math. We've looked up the actual values instead of arguing from incredulity, or taking the word of what "some dude told me".

So when you come in here, following the same script, people will poke fun at you. Trying to slide in, "just asking questions", trying to accuse without accusing, simply won't work. We're immune. We've got antibodies against "faster than free fall", and "no plane into the pentagon", "controlled demolition of WTC1, 2 and 7", "pull it", "insurance scam", "the towers weren't making money", "Flight 93 was shot down", "the fat-faced Osama", "they didn't know how to fly", "Norad stood down", "a Bush was in charge of security", "so and so heard explosions","suspicious airline stock trading", all that stuff. Really. As a group, we've looked at it, and the closer you look at it, the less there is there.
You're not going to intrigue anyone. No one's going to say, "Gee, I hadn't thought of that", because either we've thought of it, or it's been suggested, and we looked at it, and there's no evidence to support it.
Oh, and welcome to the well-trod path -- er, the forum.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Short for woo-woo, meaning paranormal, or faith-based rather than evidence-based.

IMO you're all over the place because that's how the CT mind works. You don't have evidence to back your claims, so you need to change subjects...FAST!

OK, thanks for the pics. And the woowoo expplanation.

Read the thread back; I'm all over the place because the attacks here are all over the place. Again, you guys might change a woo-woo if you welcome them without the insults. Same discussion goes on at every board I've seen. On both sides of the debate.

I appreciate your advice, you have a level head. But be careful telling me how my mind works. I have read a lot, as have you, I'm sure. Nobody just shakes off years of "knowledge" in a night, because somebody tells them every book they've read must be wrong, because all is the way the government says it is.

[uk_dave]

OK, nice, gotcha on that. (I mean, gotcha, not I gotcha). That's a good thought, but I doubt this debate is going away any time soon. While the world burns.

Again, just let them (us, I still think there's more to the story than meets the eye on 9/11) implode and collapse. If there's nothing to see, then move along, and let us waste our time and lives on nothing.

Does that make sense?


Well until the CTers come up with some genuine and irrefuteable evidence - YES

All we get here is the occasional new CTer with his/her tail in the air thinking they have the goods on the conspiracy only to find it's the same old nonsense regurgitated.

The 'truth' movement is stagnating. Online polls don't mean anything and articles in a hardcore porn magazine mean even less.

You mentioned the media in one of your earlier posts and, of course, you see the lack of media coverage as either being because they are controlled by the NWO or they are covering their arses because they don't want to be seen as having been derelict in their duty to investigate and report.

The latter is actually more absurd than the former.

There are a huge number of news media corporations around the world who would LOVE to find the scoop which would implicate the US government in 9/11, but they can't.

Sure, anonymous internet posters and video makers can say and do whatever they want because they are small fish seeking attention in a large pond. To respond to their claims is to give them the oxygen of publicity and so those who the CTers implicate in the 9/11 CT tend to ignore the CTers. But once they stick their heads above the parapet (a position the worlds media already holds) then they become targets for legal action and investigation, and then their whole hypothesis is open to question.

So the medias reluctance to give airtime to the claims of the CTers is understandable and is based on the FACT that the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 do not stand up to proper scrutiny.

It's nothing sinister, it's just proper journalism.

[Arus808]

can we put some type of organization into this, since we're falling victim to the CLASSIC WOO tactic. He asks questions, we question him back, he jumps to anotehr subject/claim, then we refute, he doesn't aknowledge and jumps to another subject


Please ONE person at a time and until that person's question is answered, do not FALL into this trap again. We've seen it with PDOH and his socks and Chris and 28th.


So, the ONLY question that should be answered from this POINT DOWN is by SkepticGuy


did you READ the nist and the 911 commission reports?

IF YOU DID NOT, then do no reply until you have done so. When you are READY, post a question in a NEW Thread about anything in those reports you need clarification on.



AGain guys, We are falling into the CLASSIC WOO tactic.....we have to stop this.

[beachnut]

I haven't even read Reynolds and Woods theory. But I will soon. Have any of you really read it?


Funny I never mentioned Reynolds and Wood. Did judy. (you are funny)

I have had enough of them. If you find value in their work, hide out until you go to college and work hard for 4 years on some engineering degree.

Good luck.

[~enigma~]

I was trying to think of more reputable outlets. Sad to say, I can't think of too many!

But then, that depends on your definition of "reputable."

What is yours? And what is your definition of imbibe?

[ConspiRaider]

This so-called "skepticalcriticalguy" is obviously a sockpuppet.

Something about his writing style seems familiar to me, and the name I came up with was:

Morphology

Thoughts?

[~enigma~]

Have you guys here proven that Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks? I'd like to read that. I think Robert Mueller might be interested in reading that, too. I've been looking for a thread, but can't find it yet. (I'm learning my way around).

You were asked a question Kind of unfair of you to ask one of anybody here until you answer the one asked of you first. Here is a repost of it.


Name an "alternate" theory that has not yet been debunked. Be a good way to earn your stripes here.

[~enigma~]

Well, I asked first. (wink) Being that this is a skeptics group, I would assume that everybody here is, or at least was initially, skeptical of the Bin Laden theory. Until proven. Am I wrong?

I guess I'm trying to find out what it is that the skeptics here are skeptical of. Is it anything that can't be backed up with evidence/proof? Or just anything that is counter to the "conventional wisdom." (e.g. the official government version).
Is there any reason you are avoiding a direct question? Can you answer what you were asked?


Name an "alternate" theory that has not yet been debunked. Be a good way to earn your stripes here.

[LashL]

OK, nice, gotcha on that. (I mean, gotcha, not I gotcha). That's a good thought, but I doubt this debate is going away any time soon. While the world burns.

Again, just let them (us, I still think there's more to the story than meets the eye on 9/11) implode and collapse. If there's nothing to see, then move along, and let us waste our time and lives on nothing.

Does that make sense?

It makes no sense that you would bother to come here to deliver that little message, no. As long as you twoofers spout BS to people, we will be here to counter your BS. If you've come here to tell those of us who rely upon facts and evidence - instead of woo - to leave you poor little misguided twoofers alone, I fear you're on a fool's errand as it appears you have no idea about why we do what we do.

Skeptics here do what we do for a myriad of reasons, some of which follow. I do not purport to speak for others, and I'm not likely to touch upon all of the reasons of all of the members here, but you'll get the idea and others will correct me or add to what I say if I've left something out or misrepresnted anything. (Because around here, that's what we do. We don't just jump on a bandwagon and cheerlead like the vast majority of the twoof movement adherents are wont to do.)

We do this because we don't like to see people misled by BS, which is all that the twoof "movement" feeds people. We do this because we don't like seeing twoofers disparage the family members of those who died that day. We do this because we will not leave unchallenged the attempts of the twoof "movement" to label everyone who doesn't buy into their unsubstantiated nonsense as "disinfo", "agents", "government shills", etc. We do this because critical thinking is important, so vitally important, and the twoof movement encourages the exact opposite - mindless followers who do not think at all.

We do this because thinking, research, facts, and evidence are important - vitally important - and the twoof movement waves away facts and reality and science and critical thinking as though they matter not a whit.

We do this because we don't like seeing woowoos trying to convince people that they should blindly follow morons like those that are embraced by you twoofers as demi-gods. We do this because lurkers and fence sitters need to see twoofers exposed for what they are, and because we want lurkers and fence sitters to see that facts, evidence, science, proof, expertise, knowledge and experience not only matter but are orders of magnitude above the alternative espoused by the twoof movement (blind belief, blind following, lack of ability or incentive to think, lack of ability or incentive to research, lack of ability or incentive to consult experts, lack of ability or incentive to become experts, etc.)

And mostly, we do this because we find the behaviour of twoofers utterly despicable when they accuse innocent people of mass murder; because we find it utterly despicable that twoofers suggest that firefighters and other first responders were "in on it" or that they are too scared to speak up for their deceased brothers and sisters; because we find the lies of the twoof movement morally repugnant; because we find it reprehensible that twoofers laugh - literally - at the heroic efforts of thoroughly decent people who died that day, in order to further the twoofers' own goals, financial and otherwise; because we never lose sight of the fact that real people died that day. Not cartoon characters, not abstract non-entities, not just a number on a piece of paper, but real people. And because the deceased left behind other real people, also victims - not cartoon characters, not abstract non-entities, but real people. Twoofers disparage these innocent victims and their families every day.

That last paragraph is reason enough all on its own for skeptics and critical thinkers to take it upon themselves to rail against twoofers. I'm surprised you had to ask.

There is much more, of course, but it's late and that will have to do for now.

[~enigma~]

I'm still deciding whether I want to bother earning my stripes here. I'm trying to find out what this is about. Somebody at another board recommended I drop by.

That said, I am intrigued by the many recent articles in the "alternate" media that discuss the possibility that we have a Mossad-riddled Pentagon and State Dept. But I see if anybody even shows an interest in discussing that topic here, they are ridiculed and accused of blaming "the jooooooooooose." (Was that too many o's?)

So, no theory at this point; just reading and learning. I trust everybody here continues to read and learn.

That didn't answer the question. Answer the question or admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.


Name an "alternate" theory that has not yet been debunked. Be a good way to earn your stripes here.

[gumboot]

Don't you think that huge corporate media outlets, owned by defense contractors and citizens of other nations, have a glaring agenda? Equal to or greater than the "alternative" outlets you listed?


I'm more inclined to trust the mig conglomerate than the little independent.

An enormous international corporation has literally hundreds of little companies under its umbrella in a wide variety of areas. It's simply not possible for the "owners" of the company to actually micromanage every single company and make sure EVERY thing they do is precisely what they want it to do.

In contrast, in a little independent media outlet, it's very easy for the owner to directly control everything that comes out of it - for exampe the owner could also be the company's ONLY editor.

In contrast, how many editors do you suppose are employed by, say, News Corp (Rupert Murdoch)? Well they have about 50,000 employees, so I'd say it's safe to estimate hundreds of editors work for the company. They own about 50 newspapers.

Do you honestly believe Murdoch personally approves (or is even aware of) every single article run by any of these newspapers?

If News Corp isn't big enough for you, how about General Electric with over 300,000 employees?

Now let's compare that to PrisonPlanet.com owned by Alex Jones. Not only does Alex Jones oversee all facets of his small company, but he personally writes a great deal of the material!

So, who do you think has more direct real control over the content released by their company?

People like Rupert Murdoch and Jeff Immelt (CEO of GE), or people like Alex Jones?

-Gumboot

[~enigma~]

Well, shucks; I've been typing the whole time. You are an impatient lot, I see. I'm going to write this, then go for a beer. When I get back and read all your attacks and snide comments, which I'm fairly certain will take up a page or two here, I will have learned a lot about each of you, and what your thinking patterns are like. I doubt I'll have time to respond to everybody's requests for proof.Wizard...I mean dough boy...I mean pdoh...what the heck are you doing back here....D'oh

:dl: